HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201700117 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2018-11-16Short Review Comments Report for:
SUB201700117
SubApplication Type:
Brookhill Development - Road Plans
New Private-Public Road Plan
Date Completed:09/26/2017
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/13/2017
Reviewer:Cameron Langille CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/08/2017
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/21/2017
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 7/31/17.
1. Fire Hydrants shall be required on a 500' spacing starting with a hydrantslocated at the
intersection of Polo Grounds Road/Road B and Rt. 29/ Road A.
Division:
Date Completed:08/14/2017
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:see uploaded comments per site plan dated 7/31/17
Division:
Date Completed:12/19/2017
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/18/2017
Reviewer:Cameron Langille CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:1 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:November 17, 2018
Reviews Comments:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/22/2017
Reviewer:Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Fire Rescue has no objections to the plans as submitted. Thank you for addressing previous
comments.
Division:
Date Completed:11/02/2017
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:see uploaded letter, per site plan dated 10/26/17
Division:
Date Completed:03/28/2018
Reviewer:Bobby Jocz CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/11/2018
Reviewer:Cameron Langille CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Jeremy Lynn ACSA
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/01/2018
Reviewer:Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Fire Rescue has no objections to the road plans as submitted. A hydrant should be installed along
Polo Grounds Road if improvements are being made. Placement can be discussed with our office
and ACSA. Thank you. SNM
Division:
Date Completed:03/23/2018
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:see uploaded letter, per site plan dated 3/7/18
Division:
Date Completed:08/20/2018
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/03/2018
Cameron LangillePage:2 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:November 17, 2018
Reviewer:Cameron Langille CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:See uploaded comment letter dated 8/3/2018.
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Adam Moore VDOT
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:10/05/2018
Reviewer:Alexander Morrison ACSA
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/29/2018
Reviewer:Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. Hydrant spacing on Polo Grounds Road is acceptable due to no structures along that travel way.
2. Hydrant spacing on Stella and Archer appear acceptable if no structures are to be built along those
travel ways. Spacing exceeds the maximum 250' from any point on street or road frontage as
submitted.
3. Where the street segments taper to less than 18' at the round-a-bouts are the curbs mountable?
4. The street segments with on street parking appear to have less than the 18' clear travel width. The
minimum width shall be 18'.
5. A fire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance.
Division:
Date Completed:07/23/2018
Reviewer:Elise Kiewra CDD GIS
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:per site plans dated 6/26/18
Division:
Date Completed:08/01/2018
Reviewer:Heather McMahon CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. Clarify the 130-foot gap in the 30-foot landscape buffer on Polo Grounds Road west of the
entrance to Stella Lane as depicted on sheet C-701.
2. Provide a detail of and specify material and color of the proposed 2’ retaining wall on the
western end of Polo Grounds Road.
3. Reduce the average planting distances of the proposed QR (Quercus rubra) on Road
A/Archer Avenue (the entrance road) from 50 feet on center to 40 feet on center in order to meet EC
Design Guidelines.
4. Provide trees in the median of Road A/Archer Avenue that correspond with previously
ARB-reviewed and approved site development plans for Block 4. Note that proposed trees in the
median will have to conform with VDOT standards and criteria.
5. On C-703, rectify the placement of 2 PXOL (Prunus laurocerasus) on the west side of the
portion of Stella Lane north of the roundabout that appear to be located in the street.
6. Ensure that there are no potential conflicts between proposed large- and medium-sized tree
planting locations and proposed utilities and their easements. On C-702, rectify the placement of 2
UAPs (Ulmus americana) directly north of the throats to future cross street(s) on Stella Lane that
appear too close to or atop the proposed sanitary sewer line.
7. Ensure that no proposed tree or shrub species exceeds 25% of the total quantity proposed
for that plant type (i.e., that no tree variety exceeds 25% the total of all trees proposed). In particular,
provide more shrub variety to the Polo Grounds Road landscape buffer. Consider varieties of
viburnum that are native to the Virginia Piedmont region to further achieve a naturalistic appearance,
such as viburnum acerifolum, viburnum dentatum, viburnum lantanoides, viburnum nudum, or
viburnum prunifolium.
8. Provide the standard plant health note on 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.
9. Revise the plant schedules on C-704 to show the total number of proposed plants by road.
Address the following discrepancies:
i. Polo Ground Roads landscape buffer
1. Rectify the schedule to match that provided on C-701: 3 NS should be 1; 18 QA should be
15; 34 CCFP should be 29; 38 JV should be 30; 27 PS should be 24; 104 VR should be 82
ii. Stella Lane
1. Rectify this schedule: 22 UAP should be 56; 391 PXOL should be 540
2. Rectify the schedule: planting distance is listed as 50’ o.c. and should be 45’ o.c.
iii. Road A/Archer Avenue and the roundabout.
1. Rectify this schedule: PAH is listed as 144 yet 142 were counted.
Division:
Page:3 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:November 17, 2018
such as viburnum acerifolum, viburnum dentatum, viburnum lantanoides, viburnum nudum, or
viburnum prunifolium.
8. Provide the standard plant health note on 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.
9. Revise the plant schedules on C-704 to show the total number of proposed plants by road.
Address the following discrepancies:
i. Polo Ground Roads landscape buffer
1. Rectify the schedule to match that provided on C-701: 3 NS should be 1; 18 QA should be
15; 34 CCFP should be 29; 38 JV should be 30; 27 PS should be 24; 104 VR should be 82
ii. Stella Lane
1. Rectify this schedule: 22 UAP should be 56; 391 PXOL should be 540
2. Rectify the schedule: planting distance is listed as 50’ o.c. and should be 45’ o.c.
iii. Road A/Archer Avenue and the roundabout.
1. Rectify this schedule: PAH is listed as 144 yet 142 were counted.
Date Completed:11/02/2018
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:- ready for approval, pending approval of WPO201800013.
Division:
Date Completed:11/02/2018
Reviewer:Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Thank you for addressing previous comments. For future reviews in addition to using the tractor
trailer dimensions please consider using a fire apparatus as engines/ladders do not "bend in the
middle". Fire Rescue has no objections at this time. SNM
Division:
Date Completed:10/11/2018
Reviewer:Cameron Langille CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:All remaining Planning comments have been addressed. Road plans can be approved.
Division:
Date Completed:10/24/2018
Reviewer:Heather McMahon CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Two requested changes from the previous review were not addressed and one additional change is
requested before final approval. If these changes are met, ARB staff has no objection to approval.
1. Provide a detail of and specify material and color of the proposed 2’ retaining wall on the western
end of Polo Grounds Road. The applicant's response letter dated 10/18/18 states that this comment
was addressed and that a detail of the retaining wall is provided on Sheet C-104. Sheet C-104 lists
"Approved Proffers" and does not contain a detail specifying material and color of the proposed
retaining wall on Polo Grounds Road.
2. Ensure that no proposed tree or shrub species in the naturalistic Polo Grounds landscape buffer
exceeds 25% of the total quantity proposed for that plant type (i.e., that no tree or shrub variety
exceeds 25% the total of all trees/shrubs proposed). Only one shrub species is proposed for this
buffer (VR, leatherleaf viburnum), while the quantity of redbuds (CCFP = 32) and red cedars (JV =
33) exceed the 25% threshold (28) for the total amount of trees proposed for the buffer. Reduce the
quantity of CCFP and JV to meet the 25% threshold criterion and introduce additional shrubbery
species, ensuring that none exceeds 25% the total shrubs proposed.
3. List the 76 MCE shrubs illustrated at the top of C-703 (lining a portion of Stella Road) in the
landscape schedule on C-703.
Division:
Date Completed:10/29/2018
Reviewer:Heather McMahon CDD ARB
Review Status:No Objection
Documentation received via email 10/29/18 that addressed three requested changes made 10/24/18
-- no objection.
Division:
Page:4 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:November 17, 2018
Reviews Comments:Documentation received via email 10/29/18 that addressed three requested changes made 10/24/18
-- no objection.
Date Completed:11/16/2018
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:Emily Cox CDD Engineering
Review Status:Pending
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:5 of 5 County of Albemarle Printed On:November 17, 2018
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Brookhill Section 1 Block 4A
Project file number: SUB201700117
Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.: Riverbend Management [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Date Received: 01 Aug 2017
Rev. 1 Date Received: 27 Oct 2017
Rev. 2 Date Received:
15 Mar 2018
Rev. 3 Date Received:
29 June 2018
Rev. 4 Date Received:
11 Oct 2018
Date of comments:
26 Sept 2017
Rev. 1 Comments:
19 Dec 2017
Rev. 2 Comments: 29 Mar 2018
Rev. 3 Comments: 20 Aug 2018
Rev. 4 Comments: 02 Nov 2018
Ryan,
We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments:
Engineering (Rev. 1: Emily Cox; Rev. 2: Bobby Jocz; Rev. 3&4: Emily Cox)
1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before road plan can be approved. The WPO should be
an amendment to the currently submitted WPO Plan and should include all work associated with the
roads. The road plan should reference the WPO number (WP02017000xx) and the WPO Plan should
reference the road plan number (SUB2017000xx). Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
Rev 2: Comment Addressed (Note decision made to allow submission of VSMP Road
Improvement Plan as separate WPO (WP0201800013) Rev. 3: Comment still valid. WPO Plan
WP0201800013 must be approved before road plan can be approved. Rev. 4: WPO Plan
approved pending SWM agreement & permission to work offsite. Also, nutrient credits must be
purchased before land disturbance.
2. Remove Erosion & Sediment Control sheets from the road plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. Show a clear line depicting the different sources of topography and where each was used on the road
plan (existing survey vs. anticipated proposed WPO grading). Rev. 1: Please revise the note. The
note says there is a hatch/shaded area, however, there appears to just be a line with a note and
arrow on each page. This line, note and arrow are sufficient. Rev.2: Comment Addressed
4. The note regarding the source of the topography should be on every sheet. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed, however there is a note on some sheets without any topography. Please remove when
there is no topography. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed
5. Clearly identify any parking spaces. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Clearly identify all buffers, steep slopes, etc. as outlined in the ZMA and WPO Plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
7. Please ensure that all proposed cross sections match the actual plan view of the road. Also, ensure
these sections match what is outlined in the Code of Development. Refer to planning comment #7 for
more detail. Rev 1: Comment addressed.
8. Please update the road -phasing plan as outlined in the proffers. It appears you will be completing
Phase I & IV with this set of plans. Rev. 1: A phase line is shown on sheet C-107, but is not clear
anywhere else.
Rev. 2: Partially addressed, phase line is difficult to identify, please make bold Rev. 3: Comment
addressed.
9. Easements will be necessary for the culvert outfalls and the walls that are outside of the ROW. Rev. 1:
These easements will need to be recorded before plan approval. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Rev. 3: Which plat will contain these easements? Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
10. The ZMA shows sidewalk/trails on both sides of Polo Grounds Road, however the road plan only
shows it on one side. Please revise and ensure you are matching what was approved on the ZMA. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
11. Please provide a draft maintenance agreement for the salamander crossing for review by the County
Attorney's office. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. This will need to be executed before plan
approval. Rev. 2: Salamander crossing maintenance agreement will be provided under separate
cover. Rev. 3: Provide the salamander crossing maintenance agreement. Rev. 4: Crossing
agreement is under review with the county attorney. This will not hold up plan approval, but it
must be executed for road acceptance. Once County Attorney approves, will provide to VDOT
for review as well.
12. Show drainage divides and designs for the culverts crossing Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
13. Ensure that any proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 specify ground cover, not grass on the plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
14. Provide a legend for the landscape plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, landscape plan
does not show any plantings in the median while typical sections show plantings. Please clarify.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed Rev. 3: Please ensure landscape meets ARB requirements. Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
15. Suggest keeping the velocity of all storm pipes below 12 ft/s if possible. Rev. 1: If VDOT approved
velocities in the ROW, then the county will also approve. Rev. 2: Comment addressed
16. Rev. 2: [Sheet 6031 Drainage divide STM B-32 is labeled twice. Please correct. Rev. 3: Comment
addressed.
17. Rev. 3: [Cover Sheet] Revise title as discussed with County Engineer. If there are any questions,
contact Frank Pohl to clarify. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
18. Rev. 3: [C-308] Structure A40 says EW -2 (Design by others). Please provide this engineered,
sealed design. Rev. 4: Comment addressed. Designs submitted as directed by VDOT.
Planning (Cameron Langille) —
1. See attached comment letter dated 09/21/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated
12/18/17. Rev. 3: See attached comment letter dated Aug 3, 2018. Rev. 4: No objections.
VDOT (Adam Moore) —
1. See attached comment letter dated 9/08/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated 12/7/17.
Rev. 3: See attached letter dated 08/20/18. Rev. 4: See attached approval letter dated
10/5/18.
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer - Rev. 3&4: Shawn Maddox) — Rev. 4: no objection.
1. Fire Hydrants shall be required on a 500' spak starting with it located at the intersection
of Polo Grounds Road/Road B and Rt. 29/ Road A. Rev. 1: No objection.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
2. Rev. 3: Hydrant spacing on Polo Grounds Road is acceptable due to no structures along that
travel way.
3. Rev. 3: Hydrant spacing on Stella and Archer appear acceptable if no structures are to be
built along those travel ways. Spacing exceeds the maximum 250' from any point on street
or road frontage as submitted.
4. Rev. 3: Where the street segments taper to less than 18' at the round -a -bouts are the curbs
mountable?
5. Rev. 3: The street segments with on street parking appear to have less than the 18' clear
travel width. The minimum width shall be 18'.
6. Rev. 3: A fire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance.
ACSA (Richard Nelson Rev. 3: Jeremy Lyn) —
1. Still under review. Did not receive comments or approval yet. Rev. 1: Still under review.
Rev 2: Still under review. Rev 3: Still under review. Rev. 4: Approved per attached email
dated 10/5/18.
GIS (Elisa Kiewra) —
1. See attached comment letter dated 8/14/17. Rev. 1: See attached letter dated 11/2/17. Rev.2: See
Letter Dated 03/21/2018 Rev. 3&4: No objection.
ARB (Heather McMahon) —
Rev. 4: Documentation received via email 10/29/18 that addressed three requested changes made
10/24/18 -- no objection.
Two requested changes from the previous review were not addressed and one additional change is
requested before final approval. If these changes are met, ARB staff has no objection to approval.
1. Provide a detail of and specify material and color of the proposed 2' retaining wall on the western
end of Polo Grounds Road. The applicant's response letter dated 10/18/18 states that this comment
was addressed and that a detail of the retaining wall is provided on Sheet C-104. Sheet C-104 lists
"Approved Proffers" and does not contain a detail specifying material and color of the proposed
retaining wall on Polo Grounds Road.
2. Ensure that no proposed tree or shrub species in the naturalistic Polo Grounds landscape buffer
exceeds 25% of the total quantity proposed for that plant type (i.e., that no tree or shrub variety
exceeds 25% the total of all trees/shrubs proposed). Only one shrub species is proposed for this
buffer (VR, leatherleaf viburnum), while the quantity of redbuds (CCFP = 32) and red cedars (JV =
33) exceed the 25% threshold (28) for the total amount of trees proposed for the buffer. Reduce the
quantity of CCFP and JV to meet the 25% threshold criterion and introduce additional shrubbery
species, ensuring that none exceeds 25% the total shrubs proposed.
3. List the 76 MCE shrubs illustrated at the top of C-703 (lining a portion of Stella Road) in the
landscape schedule on C-703.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
hiq2://www.albemarle.ory/deptfonns.ap?department--cdena3Wo
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox@albemarle.org) or by
phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565.
Sincerely,
Emily Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Brookhill Section 1 Block 4A
Project file number: SUB201700117
Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.: Riverbend Management [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Date Received: 01 Aug 2017
Rev. 1 Date Received: 27 Oct 2017
Rev. 2 Date Received: 15 Mar 2018
Rev. 3 Date Received: 29 June 2018
Date of comments: 26 Sept 2017
Rev. 1 Comments:
19 Dec 2017
Rev. 2 Comments:
29 Mar 2018
Rev. 3 Comments:
20 Aug 2018
Ryan,
We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments:
Engineering (Rev. 1: Emily Cox; Rev. 2: Bobby Jocz; Rev. 3: Emily Cox)
1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before road plan can be approved. The WPO should be
an amendment to the currently submitted WPO Plan and should include all work associated with the
roads. The road plan should reference the WPO number (WP02017000xx) and the WPO Plan should
reference the road plan number (SUB2017000xx). Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
Rev 2: Comment Addressed (Note decision made to -CA ICAn....a
Improvement Plan as separate WPO (WPO161 9000 Rev. 3: Comment still valid. WPO Plan
WP0201800013 must be approved before road plan can be approved.
2. Remove Erosion & Sediment Control sheets from mu ivau piaii. ncv. -t. Comment addressee.
3. Show a clear line depicting the different sources of topography and where each was used on the road
plan (existing survey vs. anticipated proposed WPO grading). Rev. 1: Please revise the note. The
note says there is a hatch/shaded area, however, there appears to just be a line with a note and
arrow on each page. This line, note and arrow are sufficient. Rev.2: Comment Addressed
4. The note regarding the source of the topography should be on every sheet. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed, however there is a note on some sheets without any topography. Please remove when
there is no topography. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed
5. Clearly identify any parking spaces. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Clearly identify all buffers, steep slopes, etc. as outlined in the ZMA and WPO Plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
7. Please ensure that all proposed cross sections match the actual plan view of the road. Also, ensure
these sections match what is outlined in the Code of Development. Refer to planning comment #7 for
more detail. Rev 1: Comment addressed.
8. Please update the road -phasing plan as outlined in the proffers. It appears you will be completing
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
Phase I & IV with this set of plans. Rev. 1: A phase line is shown on sheet C-107, but is not clear
anywhere else.
Rev. 2: Partially addressed, phase line is difficult to identify, please make bold Rev. 3: Comment
addressed.
9. Easements will be necessary for the culvert outfalls and the walls that are outside of the ROW. Rev. 1:
These easements will need to be recorded before plan approval. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Rev. 3: Which plat will contain these easements?
10. The ZMA shows sidewalk/trails on both sides of Polo Grounds Road, however the road plan only
shows it on one side. Please revise and ensure you are matching what was approved on the ZMA. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
11. Please provide a draft maintenance agreement for the salamander crossing for review by the County
Attorney's office. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. This will need to be executed before plan
approval. Rev. 2: Salamander crossing maintenance agreement will be provided under separate
cover. Rev. 3: Provide the salamander crossing maintenance agreement.
12. Show drainage divides and designs for the culverts crossing Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
13. Ensure that any proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 specify ground cover, not grass on the plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
14. Provide a legend for the landscape plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, landscape plan
does not show any plantings in the median while typical sections show plantings. Please clarify.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed Rev. 3: Please ensure landscape meets ARB requirements.
15. Suggest keeping the velocity of all storm pipes below 12 ft/s if possible. Rev. 1: If VDOT approved
velocities in the ROW, then the county will also approve. Rev. 2: Comment addressed
16. Rev. 2: [Sheet 6031 Drainage divide STM B-32 is labeled twice. Please correct. Rev. 3: Comment
addressed.
17. Rev. 3: [Cover Sheet] Revise title as discussed with County Engineer. If there are any questions,
contact Frank Pohl to clarify.
18. Rev. 3: [C-308] Structure A40 says EW -2 (Design by others). Please provide this engineered,
sealed design.
Planning (Cameron Langille) –
1. See attached comment letter dated 09/21/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated
12/18/17. Rev. 3: See attached comment letter dated Aug 3, 2018.
VDOT (Adam Moore) –
1. See attached comir-11-f— A—A o/nQ/"7 Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated 12/7/17.
Rev. 3: See attached letter dated 08/20/18.
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer - Rev. 3: Shawn Maddox) –
1. Fire Hydrants shall be required on a 500' spacing starting with a hydrant located at the intersection
of Polo Grounds Road/Road B and Rt. 29/ Road A. Rev. 1: No objection.
2. Rev. 3: Hydrant spacing on Polo Grounds Road is acceptable due to no structures along that
travel way.
3. Rev. 3: Hydrant spacing on Stella and Archer appear acceptable if no structures are to be
built along those travel ways. Spacing exceeds the maximum 250' from any point on street
or road frontage as submitted.
4. Rev. 3: Where the street segments taper to less than 18' at the round -a -bouts are the curbs
mountable?
5. Rev. 3: The street segments with on street parking appear to have less than the 18' clear
travel width. The minimum width shall be 18'.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
6. Rev. 3: A fire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance.
ACSA (Richard Nelson Rev. 3: Jeremy Lyn) —
1. Still under review. Did not receive comments or approval yet. Rev. 1: Still under review.
Rev 2: Still under review. Rev 3: Still under review.
GIS (Elisa Kiewra) —
1. See attached comment letter dated 8/14/17. Rev. 1: See attached letter dated 11/2/17. Rev.2: See
Letter Dated 03/21/2018 Rev. 3: No objection.
ARB (Heather McMahon) —
1. Clarify the 130 -foot gap in the 30 -foot landscape buffer on Polo Grounds Road west of the
entrance to Stella Lane as depicted on sheet C-701.
2. Provide a detail of and specify material and color of the proposed 2' retaining wall on the
western end of Polo Grounds Road.
3. Reduce the average planting distances of the proposed QR (Quercus rubra) on Road A/Archer
Avenue (the entrance road) from 50 feet on center to 40 feet on center in order to meet EC Design
Guidelines.
4. Provide trees in the median of Road A/Archer Avenue that correspond with previously ARB -
reviewed and approved site development plans for Block 4. Note that proposed trees in the median
will have to conform with VDOT standards and criteria.
5. On C-703, rectify the placement of 2 PXOL (Prunus laurocerasus) on the west side of the
portion of Stella Lane north of the roundabout that appear to be located in the street.
6. Ensure that there are no potential conflicts between proposed large- and medium-sized tree
planting locations and proposed utilities and their easements. On C-702, rectify the placement of 2
UAPs (Ulmus americana) directly north of the throats to future cross street(s) on Stella Lane that
appear too close to or atop the proposed sanitary sewer line.
7. Ensure that no proposed tree or shrub species exceeds 25% of the total quantity proposed for
that plant type (i.e., that no tree variety exceeds 25% the total of all trees proposed). In particular,
provide more shrub variety to the Polo Grounds Road landscape buffer. Consider varieties of
viburnum that are native to the Virginia Piedmont region to further achieve a naturalistic
appearance, such as viburnum acerifolum, viburnum dentatum, viburnum lantanoides, viburnum
nudum, or viburnum prunifolium.
8. Provide the standard plant health note on 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.
9. Revise the plant schedules on C-704 to show the total number of proposed plants by road.
Address the following discrepancies:
i. Polo Ground Roads landscape buffer
1. Rectify the schedule to match that provided on C-701: 3 NS should be 1; 18 QA
should be 15; 34 CCFP should be 29; 38 JV should be 30; 27 PS should be 24; 104 VR should be 82
ii. Stella Lane
1. Rectify this schedule: 22 UAP should be 56; 391 PXOL should be 540
2. Rectify the schedule: planting distance is listed as 50' o.c. and should be 45' o.c.
iii. Road A/Archer Avenue and the roundabout.
1. Rectify this schedule: PAH is listed as 144 yet 142 were counted.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforins.asp?department--cdengMTo
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox@albemarle.org) or by
phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565.
Sincerely,
Emily Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Emily Cox (ecox@albemarle.org)
From: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 21, 2017
First Revision: December 18, 2017
Second Revision: April 11, 2018
Third Revision: August 3, 2018
Subject: SUB201700117 Brookhill Development — Polo Grounds Road and Section 1 Road Plans
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced 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.]
1. [General Comment] Please provide a Site Data table on the road plans that contains as much
information from Section 14-302 and 14-303 of the Subdivision Ordinance, as relevant. This includes
the Tax Map parcel (TMP) number and magisterial district for each existing parcel; owner information;
zoning classification (including all the proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan approved
with ZMA201500007); all approved special use permits (SP201500025); zoning overlay districts; the
deed book and page number of the instrument creating all properties associated with the road plan; the
names of any water supply watersheds; etc. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Some of the
requested information is shown on Sheet C-100, but it is incomplete and is different than the Site Data
table on Sheet C-102. Please make the changes to the site information provided on C-100 as follows:
add a correct revision date to the "Code of Development" section of the data table — ZMA201500007
was revised on 10/13/2016 and approved on 11/9/2016. The Owner Information listed under the
Vicinity Map states that Riverbend Development owns all three parcels, but they do not own any of the
three TMPs associated with this road plan, correct ownership information is provided on Sheet C-102.
Please provide the full fourteen digit TMP number and list the owner information on Sheet C-100. State
the primary and overlay zoning districts, and the deed book and page number of the instrument creating
each property next to the fourteen digit TMP numbers and owner information requested. Update the
site data on Sheet C-102 so it matches the revised owner information, zoning classification, and property
records on Sheet C-100.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. There are some mistakes on the tables provided on C-100 and C-
102 to address this comment. The first column of the table for the 162.75 acre lot should state the full
fourteen digit new parcel number, which is 04600-00-00-01964. The Deed book and page column should
state DB 5011, 170 for this parcel. The last row of the DB/PG column is blank for TMP 46-1963, please
provide this information. Also, under "Tax Map Parcels" on Sheet C-100, please change TMP 04600-00-
00-01900 to the correct new TMP number which is 04600-00-00-01964.
1
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
2. [14-303 (C)] Please show the boundary lines of all existing parcels within the development. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. The existing parcel boundaries are not shown on any of the drawings (existing
conditions, overall site plan, grading, etc.) The parcel lines should be shown and include a label that
states the TMP number and the most recently recorded deed book and page numbers associated with
the property. Please be aware that there are large lot subdivisions in review right now for Brookhill
(SUB201700163, SUB201700166, and SUB201700167). If those plats are approved and recorded prior
to road plan approval, the new lot lines should be shown on all applicable drawings. The site data on
Sheet C-100 and C-102 should be updated with the new TMP numbers, owner information, zoning
classification. and recorded instrument that created the new lots.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The overall parcel boundaries appear correct on Sheet C-300, but
the property labels do not state the correct new TMP numbers or deed book and page numbers for the
most recently recorded plats on this sheet and several others. Please revise.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
3. [ZMA201500007] The proffers shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104 are not the approved proffers
associated with the Brookhill rezoning. A copy of the approved proffers with owner signatures are
attached below. Please replace the proffer statement and exhibits on the road plans with the approved
proffers. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Pages 4, page 9, and page 10 of the approved proffers
are not shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104. Please revise. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. On Sheet C-100, please add the ZMA application number under the "Code of Development"
section. The approved application number is ZMA201500007. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. Add the correct revision date (10/13/2016) and approval date (11/9/2016) to the
"Code of Development" section shown on Sheet C-100. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. [SP201500025] On Sheet C-100, please add the Special Use Permit application number that was
approved to allow grading activities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The approved application
number is SP201500025. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Add the signed resolution and approved conditions of SP201500025 to Sheets C-103 and C-104.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a Proffer Narrative statement that identifies which proffers from
ZMA201500007 are being addressed with this set of road plans. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
A proffer narrative has been provided on Sheet C-102. However, per conversations between the
applicant and Planning/Zoning staff on December 15, 2017, staff requests that the applicant provide
a table listing each proffer by number and sub -letter and with a column stating what physical
improvements, fees, dedications, etc. are required for each proffer. A column listing the "trigger"
point for each specific proffer should be provided. The table should contain other columns that can
be filled in with the application number for the site plan or subdivision plat that completed the proffer.
Should the applicant have additional questions on how to format the table, please contact Rebecca
Ragsdale with the Zoning Division at rragsdale@albemarle.org.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Per applicant response to second review comments, the developer and
Bohler Engineering will work with Rebecca Ragsdale in the Zoning Division to create a proffer tracking
spreadsheet. This will be updated as subdivision and site plans are approved within Brookhill.
2
6. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a sheet that shows the approved Brookhill Zoning Map Amendment
Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] Please amend the cross sections for all proposed roads in accordance with
Section 2.8 of the Brookhill Code of Development and the approved Brookhill rezoning Application Plan.
Please see VDOT comment #1 for additional information.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road A" is designated as a "Main Street Boulevard Entrance" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-306 for Road A do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets C-902 —
C-903. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation. Please identify which cross-
sections from the Code of Development will be used for each segment of the proposed Road A
on Sheets C-902 and C-903. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Code of Development
states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott,
kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning Division to arrange a discussion with VDOT
regarding their request to make "Road A" a 35 mph road. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road B" is designated as the "North/South Connector Road" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-304 and C-305 for Road B do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets
C-903 — C-904. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation or on -street parking.
Please identify which cross-sections from the Code of Development will be used for each
segment of the proposed Road B on Sheets C-903 and C-904. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. The Code of Development states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed
limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning Division
to arranee a discussion with VDOT regarding their reauest to make "Road B" a 35 mph road.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
8. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8, and 18-4.12.16] The Road B profile shown on Sheet C-305 shows parallel
parking spaces being installed on both side of the street. Please provide a calculation of how many
spaces are being installed and provide an enlarged detail showing the dimensions of each parking space
in compliance with County design standards. As a reminder, the Zoning Ordinance requires parallel
parking spaces to be a minimum 9' in width, and 20' in length. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please amend the cross sections on Pages C-903 and C-904 for Road B as necessary to depict the
location and dimensions of the on -street parking. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. [ZMA201500007] The initial site plan currently in review for Phase 4A of Brookhill (SDP2017000047)
shows the same landscaping installation along Road A and Road B as depicted on the road plans. Both
plans also show installation of buffer vegetation along Polo Grounds Road. Please be aware that any
landscaping shown on the Road Plans will be bonded as part of the road improvements. The vegetation
proposed on the road plans in these areas can still be shown on the site plans, but should include a note
stating something such as "vegetation shown within the Road A right-of-way to be installed per road
plans SUB201700117." Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Staff agrees with the applicants response,
but asks that notes be provided on the Landscape Plans as follows:
"1. All required plantings within the right of way for the portions of Roads A and B proposed with
SUB201700117 will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"2. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road between Route 29 and the entrance for Road B
will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"3. Required plantings within the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks
4A, 4B, and 8A."
"4. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road east of the intersection of Road B will be shown
on the future final site plans and plats for the blocks that border Polo Grounds Road."
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Please provide a note stating whether the landscaping will be installed with the final site plan
for each block, or with the road plans. Street trees within public right-of-ways should be done
as part of the road plans. Buffer plantings may be installed with either the road plans or final
site plans, but staff requests information from the applicant as to the intended timing for this.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, a note will be added to all final site plans
moving forward stating which trees have been previously approved and planted with existing
road plans. The trees will be labeled as existine on the final site clans to avoid confusion.
10. [ZMA201500007 & 18-32.7.9.5] On Sheet C-701, please move the match line label for the match line
corresponding to Sheet C-703. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [ZMA201500007] Please revise the Landscape drawings, Sheets C-701 — C-705 so that each roadway
section has a Landscape Schedule that specifies the species, quantity, and spacing of landscaping
proposed only in that road section. Rev. 1: Please remove all references to building setbacks on Sheets
C-701 through C-705. Per pages 16-18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will
be measured from the buffer line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each
individual block. The 100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo
Grounds Road buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels
along the northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer."
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
The quantity of trees provided in the Landscape Schedules are incorrect on Sheets C-701 through C-704.
For example, two QAC trees are provided along Road B on Sheet C-701 but the schedule does not reflect
this. Also, the landscape Schedule for Road B on Sheet C-702 states that 48 QAC trees are provided, but
only 22 trees are shown on this Landscaping section detail. Each Landscape Schedule should state the
exact quantity of each vegetation type provided on that Sheet. Please revise accordingly. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Please revise all Landscape Schedules so that the Botanical Name and Common Name of each
species is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation. Rev. 1: Comment not
fully addressed. The landscape schedules provided do not state the height at time of installation
for the vegetation shown. Please add a column to each landscape schedule on Sheets C-701
through C-705. The proposed spacing of some vegetation is not provided in the landscape
schedules on Sheet C-704, please revise.
The Japanese Zelkova trees along Road A and the Sawtooth Oak trees along Road B are not
species of large shade trees that are on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Please
revise the proposed species as necessary. Please find the list to approved species HERE.
4
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. On Sheet C-702, the two Stella Lane street tree labels for
the ten northernmost trees states "5 UPD" instead of "UAP." Please revise.
On Sheet C-705, the total quantity of UAP trees along Stella Lane is 48, not 22, please revise.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
b. Please add a column to the Landscape Schedules stating the spacing requirements for street
trees, in accordance with Section 2.8.1 and 3.2.1 of the Code of Development, and Section
32.7.9.5 the Zoning Ordinance. As a reminder, one large shade tree is required every 50' of road
frontage per the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [ZMA201500007] The Road B typical section on Sheet C-903 shows a "variable width" plating strip on
both sides of the street. Per Section 14-422 (D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the planting strip must be
a minimum of 6' in width. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.7.9.5 (d) & 14-422 (D)] The Road B section shown on Sheet C-703 shows three (3) QAC street trees
planted behind the sidewalk along the west side of the street. As required by the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances, street trees along public streets must be planted between the curb and the sidewalk in a
planting strip that is a minimum 6' in width. Please revise the locations or explain why they are located
there. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.7.9.5 (d)] The spacing of street trees shown in the Road B section on Sheet C-703 does not comply
with the 50' spacing requirement. Please amend as necessary so that trees are planted every 50' on both
sides of the street. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.7.9.5 (d) and 14-422 (D)] Please add an additional street tree to both sides of the north end of Road
B on Sheet C-704 in order to satisfy the 50' spacing requirement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a narrative regarding grading and landscaping removal/installation
within the 100' wide Route 29 buffer and the 30' wide Polo Grounds Road buffer.
a. Please provide an enlarged exhibit showing all required buffers within Brookhill and highlight
the portions of each buffer that will have landscaping installed as part of the road plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. The Route 29 buffer plantings have been removed from the road plans.
The proposed Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer is partially provided between the intersection
with Route 29 and Road B. This section of the Polo Grounds buffer will be reviewed and
approved with the road plans. The other portions of the Polo Grounds buffer will be provided
on the site plans for future blocks around Polo Grounds Road.
b. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 100' Route 29 buffer boundary line across the grading and landscaping drawings. There should
be a line inside of the buffer for the boundary between the 70' undisturbed portion and the 30'
portion that can be graded and disturbed. The existing tree line should be shown, and all areas
that will be re -planted as part of the road plan landscaping should be called out. If the buffer
landscaping will be installed as part of the site plans for each block, please state so on the
landscaping plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, the Route 29 buffer
plantings have been remove from these road plans and will be shown on the final site plans
for each block that gets developed along Route 29. Staff will review the buffer plantings during
the final site plan for review for those blocks.
c. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 30' wide buffer boundary line along Polo Grounds Road on the grading and landscaping
drawings. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development,
all buffers shall be measured from the property lines or public right of way. Sheet C-106 shows
a buffer line that is labeled as 30' wide along Polo Grounds Road, but the buffer line is not
uniform for the entire length of Polo Grounds Road. Please adjust the buffer line shown so that
it is 30' wide across the entire frontage of Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please remove the word "setback" from all buffer labels shown on Sheet C-106. Per pages 16-
18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will be measured from the buffer
line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each individual block. The
100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo Grounds Road
buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels along the
northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer." Rev.
2: Comment addressed.
Please add the Ashwood Connector buffer to Sheet C-106. Please consult the Application Plan,
the buffer table on page 19 of the Code of Development, and Figure C of the approved proffers
for the location of the Ashwood Connector Buffer. It is required to be a minimum 30' in width
between the adjacent lots and the proposed Ashwood Connector Road. Rev. 2: Comment not
fully addressed. Please show the east side of the buffer as a minimum 30' wide buffer, it is
currently shown as 20.' Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development (page 19), the Polo Grounds Road buffer is
supposed to be a mixture of undisturbed vegetation and a replanted landscaping. New plantings
are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Can information on the existing size,
location, and types of landscaping within the 30' buffer be provided? The proposed landscaping
is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, and staff requests additional information
in order to verify that the proposed landscaping will meet the requirements of the ode of
Development. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. The Director of Planning has reviewed the
proposed landscaping to be installed within the Polo Grounds Road buffer and has no
objections.
Please rename the "Landscape Buffer Schedule" table on Sheet C-704 to state "Polo Grounds
Landscape Buffer Schedule. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Add a note to the Landscaping Plans, Sheets C-701 and C-704 stating "Required plantings within
the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks 4A, 413, and 8A." Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
Clarify the proposed property line location and the 30' Polo Grounds Road buffer boundary line
on all landscaping drawings. The buffer line and labels are indistinguishable due to the varying
topographical lines and other information visible on these drawings. As a reminder, the buffer
line is measured 30' from the road right-of-way/property line. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
17. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #2A] A portion of the primitive trail network along Polo Grounds Road is
shown as an improvement that will be constructed as part of the road construction. Please provide an
exhibit that shows all proposed primitive trails within Brookhill as depicted on the ZMA Application Plan.
The exhibit should highlight the portions of the primitive trail that will be constructed with this road
6
plan. This will allow staff to account for what trails need to be constructed on future phases of Brookhill.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Proffer Statement on Sheet C-103 states that no primitive
trails are proposed within the greenway as part of this plan. However, Sheet C-107 shows that the 10'
multi -use path that is shown on the rezoning application plan will be installed with this road plan. Proffer
#2A states that construction of the primitive trail must commence concurrently with the first block that
gets developed within the prosect. Please provide more information regarding when the trail network
will beein installation. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please highlight Road A and B on Sheet C-107 and note that these are the only improvements under
review as part of Sub201700117. Please gray out all other blocks and sections, and note that the lot
lines, building footprints, and streets are conceptual only and may change on future site plan and
subdivision slats. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
18. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #1E] Please provide information regarding the proposed timing for
construction and installation of the transit stop. The Brookhill Application Plan shows a generalized
location for the transit stop at the northeast corner of the traffic circle at the intersection of Road A and
Road B. Has the applicant discussed the location and design with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT)? Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
19. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for Road A and Road B, an Application For Special Lot
must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the special lot
application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan application. The
applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road plan approval
but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be aware that any
other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along Road A or Road B will not be approved
until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any final site plans proposing uses
on lots that would use frontage of Road A or Road B. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss
timing of the right-of-way dedication. Rev. 1.: Please provide information on when the Application for a
Special Lot will be submitted in order to dedicate the right of way for the public streets proposed as part
of this road plan. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, this comment has been acknowledged. The right-of-
way for Roads A and B will need to be approved through an Application for A Special Lot prior to any
further final subdivision plats or final site plans for lots along either road that are using the right-of-
ways for frontage purposes.
New Comments Revision 3:
20. [ZMA201500007] On Sheet C-904, the typical section of Stella Lane from 27+42.26 to 28+25.66 is shown
as having bike lanes on both sides of the street, as is required by the Code of Development. However,
the road profile for this segment of the road on Sheet C-306 does not show any bike lanes. Other
drawings, such as the striping/signage plan on Sheet C-318 also does not show bike lanes along this
segment of Stella Lane. Please update the all sheets showing that segment of Stella Lane in profile view
with bike lanes on both sides.
21. [ZMA201500007] As labeled on Sheet C-312, a bench and bus shelter are proposed within the right of
way of Stella Lane at the future transit stop. Please provide a standard detail in profile and/or plan view
of the shelter and bench design. Staff did not see any insets on the construction details drawings for
these improvements.
a. This comment is for informational purposes only - please be aware that no signage installation
is required by the developer at the future transit stop. Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) will
7
install their own signage at the bus stop when transit service is brought to the development in
the future.
Please contact Cameron Langille in the Planning Division by using blangille@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3432 for further information.
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
August 20, 2018
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Emily Cox, P.E.
Re: Polo Grounds Road Improvements & Brookhill Section i Block 4A — Road Plan
SUB -2017-00117
Review #4
Dear Ms. Cox:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, and Culpeper Location & Design Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as
submitted by Bohler Engineering, revised 26 June 2018, and offers the following comments:
1. Plans for the proposed 5'x5' box culvert and pedestrian tunnel must be approved by
VDOT Culpeper District Structure & Bridge Section. Provide these plans to the
Charlottesville Residency, including all drainage information, as the District Hydraulics
Section will also need to review. Note that installation of these structures will not be
permitted until all approvals have been obtained.
2. The entrance to Block 3B should be revised to match that proposed street alignment. See
our Block 3B review letter.
3. Provide a similar note to the one requested concerning modified wingwalls (previous
review) for the box culvert and pedestrian tunnel.
4. Curb ramps must be in-line with the directions of pedestrian travel. An incorrect example
is the Stella Lane entrance to Block 4B.
5. The dimensions (width, length, and taper lengths) of the mid -block bus pullout are
substandard and should be revised. (See VDOT Road Design Manual, page A(1)-105.)
6. The bus shelter shown on the plans is too small, and is located too close to the curb.
Bus shelters must be located at least 5' (8' if the boarding platform is located in front of
the bus shelter) behind the back of the curb. See VDOT Road Design Manual, page A(l)-
109.
7. Provide appropriate bike lane ends signage at the roundabout approaches.
8. The curb and gutter design/location needs to be revised so that the gutter pan doesn't
intrude into the circulatory roadway.
9. The geometry of the roundabout and its approaches are hard to decipher amongst all the
grading information, and this information is not provided on the signage plan. The
Department recommends providing a pdf, to also be included in the plans on the next
submission, including the following:
a. All approach dimensions, including grades
b. Splitter island widths, raised/flush, CG -6?
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
August 20, 2018
Emily Cox, P.E.
Page 2
c. Roundabout sight distance lines (see attached exert from Roundabout: An
Infonnational Guide)
d. More detail on the hatched area of the roundabout. Is this raised, mountable?
e. Include cross-section of roundabout.
9. Because the traffic volumes on Archer Avenue and Stella Lane are between 2,000 and
10,000, the proposed bike lane widths should be 5' (rather than 4') at areas without
parking, and 6' in areas with on street parking. (See VDOT Road Design Manual, page
A(1)-13.)
10. Some of the trees shown on the landscaping plans are too close to the intersections, will
block intersection sight distance, and will need to be relocated. Please check the
intersection sight distance at each intersection to verify that trees, parked vehicles,
landscaping, etc. do not block the intersection sight distance. In addition, trees and other
items should not be placed where they will block visibility of pedestrians near the curb
ramp areas.
11. The proposed alignment shift of the shared use path located adjacent to Route 29 should
be revised to meet an 18 mph design speed. (See VDOT Road Design Manual, page
A(l)-29.)
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,
L dL/GdLV
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
Exhibit 6 -SS
Stopping Sight Distance
on the Approach
Exhibit 6-56
Stopping Sight Distance
on Circulatory Roadway
Exhibit 6-57
Sight Distance to
Crosswalk on Exit
LEGEND
d Stopping eight distance /
related to approaching speed
LEGEND
of Distance related to stopping
sight dist ace and circulatory
speed
1
p�\
.x
}
1►L1, ill!!
Page 6-62
r'.nnvrinht Nntinnal Ararlamv of Cripnrp¢ All rinhtS racamarl
Chapter 6/Geometric Design
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
6.7.3.2 Intersection Sight Distance
Intersection sight distance is the distance required for a driver without the right-
of-way to perceive and react to the presence of conflicting vehicles. Intersection sight
distance is achieved through the establishment of sight triangles that allow a driver to
see and safely react to potentially conflicting vehicles. At roundabouts, the only loca-
tions requiring evaluation of intersection sight distance are the entries.
Intersection sight distance is traditionally measured through the determination
of a sight triangle. This triangle is bounded by a length of roadway defining a limit
away from the intersection on each of the two conflicting approaches and by a line
connecting those two limits. For roundabouts, these legs should be assumed to fol-
low the curvature of the roadway, and thus distances should be measured not as
straight lines but as distances along the vehicular path.
Intersection sight distance should be measured using an assumed height of
driver's eye of 3.5 ft (1,080 mm) and an assumed height of object of 3.5 ft (1,080 mm)
in accordance with the AASHTO "Green Book" (4) which is based upon NCHRP
Report 383: Intersection Sight Distances (20).
Exhibit 6-58 presents a diagram showing the method for determining inter-
section sight distance. As can be seen in the exhibit, the sight distance triangle has
two conflicting approaches that must be checked independently. The following
two subsections discuss the calculation of the length of each of the approaching
sight limits.
LEGEND
d, Entering stream distance
dp Circulating stream distance
I,
50 R (15 ng
6.7.3.3 Length of Approach Leg of Sight Triangle
The length of the approach leg of the sight triangle should be limited to 50 ft
(15 m). British research on sight distance has determined that excessive intersection
sight distance results in a higher frequency of crashes. This value, consistent with
British and French practice, is intended to require vehicles to slow down prior to
entering the roundabout, which supports the need to slow down and yield at the
roundabout entry and allows drivers to focus on the pedestrian crossing prior to
Chapter 6/Geometric Design
Page 6-63
rnnvrinht IUatinnal Arariamv of grianrac all rinhte racanrari
Entries to mundaboufS
require adequate lntersecdon
sight distance.
Exhibit 6-58
Intersection Slght Distance
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Emily Cox (ecox@albemarle.org)
From: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 21, 2017
First Revision: December 18, 2017
Second Revision: April 11, 2018
Third Revision: August 3, 2018
Subject: SUB201700117 Brookhill Development — Polo Grounds Road and Section 1 Road Plans
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced 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.]
1. [General Comment] Please provide a Site Data table on the road plans that contains as much
information from Section 14-302 and 14-303 of the Subdivision Ordinance, as relevant. This includes
the Tax Map parcel (TMP) number and magisterial district for each existing parcel; owner information;
zoning classification (including all the proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan approved
with ZMA201500007); all approved special use permits (SP201500025); zoning overlay districts; the
deed book and page number of the instrument creating all properties associated with the road plan; the
names of any water supply watersheds; etc. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Some of the
requested information is shown on Sheet C-100, but it is incomplete and is different than the Site Data
table on Sheet C-102. Please make the changes to the site information provided on C-100 as follows:
add a correct revision date to the "Code of Development" section of the data table — ZMA201500007
was revised on 10/13/2016 and approved on 11/9/2016. The Owner Information listed under the
Vicinity Map states that Riverbend Development owns all three parcels, but they do not own any of the
three TMPs associated with this road plan, correct ownership information is provided on Sheet C-102.
Please provide the full fourteen digit TMP number and list the owner information on Sheet C-100. State
the primary and overlay zoning districts, and the deed book and page number of the instrument creating
each property next to the fourteen digit TMP numbers and owner information requested. Update the
site data on Sheet C-102 so it matches the revised owner information, zoning classification, and property
records on Sheet C-100.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. There are some mistakes on the tables provided on C-100 and C-
102 to address this comment. The first column of the table for the 162.75 acre lot should state the full
fourteen digit new parcel number, which is 04600-00-00-01964. The Deed book and page column should
state DB 5011, 170 for this parcel. The last row of the DB/PG column is blank for TMP 46-1963, please
provide this information. Also, under "Tax Map Parcels" on Sheet C-100, please change TMP 04600-00-
00-01900 to the correct new TMP number which is 04600-00-00-01964.
1
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
2. [14-303 (C)] Please show the boundary lines of all existing parcels within the development. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. The existing parcel boundaries are not shown on any of the drawings (existing
conditions, overall site plan, grading, etc.) The parcel lines should be shown and include a label that
states the TMP number and the most recently recorded deed book and page numbers associated with
the property. Please be aware that there are large lot subdivisions in review right now for Brookhill
(SUB201700163, SUB201700166, and SUB201700167). If those plats are approved and recorded prior
to road plan approval, the new lot lines should be shown on all applicable drawings. The site data on
Sheet C-100 and C-102 should be updated with the new TMP numbers, owner information, zoning
classification. and recorded instrument that created the new lots.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The overall parcel boundaries appear correct on Sheet C-300, but
the property labels do not state the correct new TMP numbers or deed book and page numbers for the
most recently recorded plats on this sheet and several others. Please revise.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
3. [ZMA201500007] The proffers shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104 are not the approved proffers
associated with the Brookhill rezoning. A copy of the approved proffers with owner signatures are
attached below. Please replace the proffer statement and exhibits on the road plans with the approved
proffers. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Pages 4, page 9, and page 10 of the approved proffers
are not shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104. Please revise. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. On Sheet C-100, please add the ZMA application number under the "Code of Development"
section. The approved application number is ZMA201500007. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. Add the correct revision date (10/13/2016) and approval date (11/9/2016) to the
"Code of Development" section shown on Sheet C-100. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. [SP201500025] On Sheet C-100, please add the Special Use Permit application number that was
approved to allow grading activities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The approved application
number is SP201500025. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Add the signed resolution and approved conditions of SP201500025 to Sheets C-103 and C-104.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a Proffer Narrative statement that identifies which proffers from
ZMA201500007 are being addressed with this set of road plans. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
A proffer narrative has been provided on Sheet C-102. However, per conversations between the
applicant and Planning/Zoning staff on December 15, 2017, staff requests that the applicant provide
a table listing each proffer by number and sub -letter and with a column stating what physical
improvements, fees, dedications, etc. are required for each proffer. A column listing the "trigger"
point for each specific proffer should be provided. The table should contain other columns that can
be filled in with the application number for the site plan or subdivision plat that completed the proffer.
Should the applicant have additional questions on how to format the table, please contact Rebecca
Ragsdale with the Zoning Division at rragsdale@albemarle.org.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Per applicant response to second review comments, the developer and
Bohler Engineering will work with Rebecca Ragsdale in the Zoning Division to create a proffer tracking
spreadsheet. This will be updated as subdivision and site plans are approved within Brookhill.
2
6. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a sheet that shows the approved Brookhill Zoning Map Amendment
Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] Please amend the cross sections for all proposed roads in accordance with
Section 2.8 of the Brookhill Code of Development and the approved Brookhill rezoning Application Plan.
Please see VDOT comment #1 for additional information.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road A" is designated as a "Main Street Boulevard Entrance" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-306 for Road A do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets C-902 —
C-903. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation. Please identify which cross-
sections from the Code of Development will be used for each segment of the proposed Road A
on Sheets C-902 and C-903. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Code of Development
states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott,
kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning Division to arrange a discussion with VDOT
regarding their request to make "Road A" a 35 mph road. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road B" is designated as the "North/South Connector Road" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-304 and C-305 for Road B do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets
C-903 — C-904. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation or on -street parking.
Please identify which cross-sections from the Code of Development will be used for each
segment of the proposed Road B on Sheets C-903 and C-904. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. The Code of Development states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed
limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning Division
to arranee a discussion with VDOT regarding their reauest to make "Road B" a 35 mph road.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
8. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8, and 18-4.12.16] The Road B profile shown on Sheet C-305 shows parallel
parking spaces being installed on both side of the street. Please provide a calculation of how many
spaces are being installed and provide an enlarged detail showing the dimensions of each parking space
in compliance with County design standards. As a reminder, the Zoning Ordinance requires parallel
parking spaces to be a minimum 9' in width, and 20' in length. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please amend the cross sections on Pages C-903 and C-904 for Road B as necessary to depict the
location and dimensions of the on -street parking. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. [ZMA201500007] The initial site plan currently in review for Phase 4A of Brookhill (SDP2017000047)
shows the same landscaping installation along Road A and Road B as depicted on the road plans. Both
plans also show installation of buffer vegetation along Polo Grounds Road. Please be aware that any
landscaping shown on the Road Plans will be bonded as part of the road improvements. The vegetation
proposed on the road plans in these areas can still be shown on the site plans, but should include a note
stating something such as "vegetation shown within the Road A right-of-way to be installed per road
plans SUB201700117." Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Staff agrees with the applicants response,
but asks that notes be provided on the Landscape Plans as follows:
"1. All required plantings within the right of way for the portions of Roads A and B proposed with
SUB201700117 will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"2. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road between Route 29 and the entrance for Road B
will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"3. Required plantings within the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks
4A, 4B, and 8A."
"4. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road east of the intersection of Road B will be shown
on the future final site plans and plats for the blocks that border Polo Grounds Road."
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Please provide a note stating whether the landscaping will be installed with the final site plan
for each block, or with the road plans. Street trees within public right-of-ways should be done
as part of the road plans. Buffer plantings may be installed with either the road plans or final
site plans, but staff requests information from the applicant as to the intended timing for this.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, a note will be added to all final site plans
moving forward stating which trees have been previously approved and planted with existing
road plans. The trees will be labeled as existine on the final site clans to avoid confusion.
10. [ZMA201500007 & 18-32.7.9.5] On Sheet C-701, please move the match line label for the match line
corresponding to Sheet C-703. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [ZMA201500007] Please revise the Landscape drawings, Sheets C-701 — C-705 so that each roadway
section has a Landscape Schedule that specifies the species, quantity, and spacing of landscaping
proposed only in that road section. Rev. 1: Please remove all references to building setbacks on Sheets
C-701 through C-705. Per pages 16-18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will
be measured from the buffer line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each
individual block. The 100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo
Grounds Road buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels
along the northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer."
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
The quantity of trees provided in the Landscape Schedules are incorrect on Sheets C-701 through C-704.
For example, two QAC trees are provided along Road B on Sheet C-701 but the schedule does not reflect
this. Also, the landscape Schedule for Road B on Sheet C-702 states that 48 QAC trees are provided, but
only 22 trees are shown on this Landscaping section detail. Each Landscape Schedule should state the
exact quantity of each vegetation type provided on that Sheet. Please revise accordingly. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Please revise all Landscape Schedules so that the Botanical Name and Common Name of each
species is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation. Rev. 1: Comment not
fully addressed. The landscape schedules provided do not state the height at time of installation
for the vegetation shown. Please add a column to each landscape schedule on Sheets C-701
through C-705. The proposed spacing of some vegetation is not provided in the landscape
schedules on Sheet C-704, please revise.
The Japanese Zelkova trees along Road A and the Sawtooth Oak trees along Road B are not
species of large shade trees that are on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Please
revise the proposed species as necessary. Please find the list to approved species HERE.
4
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. On Sheet C-702, the two Stella Lane street tree labels for
the ten northernmost trees states "5 UPD" instead of "UAP." Please revise.
On Sheet C-705, the total quantity of UAP trees along Stella Lane is 48, not 22, please revise.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
b. Please add a column to the Landscape Schedules stating the spacing requirements for street
trees, in accordance with Section 2.8.1 and 3.2.1 of the Code of Development, and Section
32.7.9.5 the Zoning Ordinance. As a reminder, one large shade tree is required every 50' of road
frontage per the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [ZMA201500007] The Road B typical section on Sheet C-903 shows a "variable width" plating strip on
both sides of the street. Per Section 14-422 (D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the planting strip must be
a minimum of 6' in width. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.7.9.5 (d) & 14-422 (D)] The Road B section shown on Sheet C-703 shows three (3) QAC street trees
planted behind the sidewalk along the west side of the street. As required by the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances, street trees along public streets must be planted between the curb and the sidewalk in a
planting strip that is a minimum 6' in width. Please revise the locations or explain why they are located
there. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.7.9.5 (d)] The spacing of street trees shown in the Road B section on Sheet C-703 does not comply
with the 50' spacing requirement. Please amend as necessary so that trees are planted every 50' on both
sides of the street. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.7.9.5 (d) and 14-422 (D)] Please add an additional street tree to both sides of the north end of Road
B on Sheet C-704 in order to satisfy the 50' spacing requirement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a narrative regarding grading and landscaping removal/installation
within the 100' wide Route 29 buffer and the 30' wide Polo Grounds Road buffer.
a. Please provide an enlarged exhibit showing all required buffers within Brookhill and highlight
the portions of each buffer that will have landscaping installed as part of the road plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. The Route 29 buffer plantings have been removed from the road plans.
The proposed Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer is partially provided between the intersection
with Route 29 and Road B. This section of the Polo Grounds buffer will be reviewed and
approved with the road plans. The other portions of the Polo Grounds buffer will be provided
on the site plans for future blocks around Polo Grounds Road.
b. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 100' Route 29 buffer boundary line across the grading and landscaping drawings. There should
be a line inside of the buffer for the boundary between the 70' undisturbed portion and the 30'
portion that can be graded and disturbed. The existing tree line should be shown, and all areas
that will be re -planted as part of the road plan landscaping should be called out. If the buffer
landscaping will be installed as part of the site plans for each block, please state so on the
landscaping plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, the Route 29 buffer
plantings have been remove from these road plans and will be shown on the final site plans
for each block that gets developed along Route 29. Staff will review the buffer plantings during
the final site plan for review for those blocks.
c. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 30' wide buffer boundary line along Polo Grounds Road on the grading and landscaping
drawings. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development,
all buffers shall be measured from the property lines or public right of way. Sheet C-106 shows
a buffer line that is labeled as 30' wide along Polo Grounds Road, but the buffer line is not
uniform for the entire length of Polo Grounds Road. Please adjust the buffer line shown so that
it is 30' wide across the entire frontage of Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please remove the word "setback" from all buffer labels shown on Sheet C-106. Per pages 16-
18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will be measured from the buffer
line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each individual block. The
100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo Grounds Road
buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels along the
northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer." Rev.
2: Comment addressed.
Please add the Ashwood Connector buffer to Sheet C-106. Please consult the Application Plan,
the buffer table on page 19 of the Code of Development, and Figure C of the approved proffers
for the location of the Ashwood Connector Buffer. It is required to be a minimum 30' in width
between the adjacent lots and the proposed Ashwood Connector Road. Rev. 2: Comment not
fully addressed. Please show the east side of the buffer as a minimum 30' wide buffer, it is
currently shown as 20.' Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development (page 19), the Polo Grounds Road buffer is
supposed to be a mixture of undisturbed vegetation and a replanted landscaping. New plantings
are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Can information on the existing size,
location, and types of landscaping within the 30' buffer be provided? The proposed landscaping
is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, and staff requests additional information
in order to verify that the proposed landscaping will meet the requirements of the ode of
Development. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. The Director of Planning has reviewed the
proposed landscaping to be installed within the Polo Grounds Road buffer and has no
objections.
Please rename the "Landscape Buffer Schedule" table on Sheet C-704 to state "Polo Grounds
Landscape Buffer Schedule. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Add a note to the Landscaping Plans, Sheets C-701 and C-704 stating "Required plantings within
the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks 4A, 413, and 8A." Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
Clarify the proposed property line location and the 30' Polo Grounds Road buffer boundary line
on all landscaping drawings. The buffer line and labels are indistinguishable due to the varying
topographical lines and other information visible on these drawings. As a reminder, the buffer
line is measured 30' from the road right-of-way/property line. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
17. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #2A] A portion of the primitive trail network along Polo Grounds Road is
shown as an improvement that will be constructed as part of the road construction. Please provide an
exhibit that shows all proposed primitive trails within Brookhill as depicted on the ZMA Application Plan.
The exhibit should highlight the portions of the primitive trail that will be constructed with this road
6
plan. This will allow staff to account for what trails need to be constructed on future phases of Brookhill.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Proffer Statement on Sheet C-103 states that no primitive
trails are proposed within the greenway as part of this plan. However, Sheet C-107 shows that the 10'
multi -use path that is shown on the rezoning application plan will be installed with this road plan. Proffer
#2A states that construction of the primitive trail must commence concurrently with the first block that
gets developed within the prosect. Please provide more information regarding when the trail network
will beein installation. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please highlight Road A and B on Sheet C-107 and note that these are the only improvements under
review as part of Sub201700117. Please gray out all other blocks and sections, and note that the lot
lines, building footprints, and streets are conceptual only and may change on future site plan and
subdivision slats. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
18. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #1E] Please provide information regarding the proposed timing for
construction and installation of the transit stop. The Brookhill Application Plan shows a generalized
location for the transit stop at the northeast corner of the traffic circle at the intersection of Road A and
Road B. Has the applicant discussed the location and design with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT)? Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
19. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for Road A and Road B, an Application For Special Lot
must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the special lot
application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan application. The
applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road plan approval
but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be aware that any
other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along Road A or Road B will not be approved
until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any final site plans proposing uses
on lots that would use frontage of Road A or Road B. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss
timing of the right-of-way dedication. Rev. 1.: Please provide information on when the Application for a
Special Lot will be submitted in order to dedicate the right of way for the public streets proposed as part
of this road plan. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, this comment has been acknowledged. The right-of-
way for Roads A and B will need to be approved through an Application for A Special Lot prior to any
further final subdivision plats or final site plans for lots along either road that are using the right-of-
ways for frontage purposes.
New Comments Revision 3:
20. [ZMA201500007] On Sheet C-904, the typical section of Stella Lane from 27+42.26 to 28+25.66 is shown
as having bike lanes on both sides of the street, as is required by the Code of Development. However,
the road profile for this segment of the road on Sheet C-306 does not show any bike lanes. Other
drawings, such as the striping/signage plan on Sheet C-318 also does not show bike lanes along this
segment of Stella Lane. Please update the all sheets showing that segment of Stella Lane in profile view
with bike lanes on both sides.
21. [ZMA201500007] As labeled on Sheet C-312, a bench and bus shelter are proposed within the right of
way of Stella Lane at the future transit stop. Please provide a standard detail in profile and/or plan view
of the shelter and bench design. Staff did not see any insets on the construction details drawings for
these improvements.
a. This comment is for informational purposes only - please be aware that no signage installation
is required by the developer at the future transit stop. Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) will
7
install their own signage at the bus stop when transit service is brought to the development in
the future.
Please contact Cameron Langille in the Planning Division by using blangille@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3432 for further information.
OY AL
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Emily Cox (ecox@albemarle.org)
From: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 21, 2017
First Revision: December 18, 2017
Second Revision: April 11, 2018
Subject: SUB201700117 Brookhill Development— Polo Grounds Road and Section 1 Road Plans
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced 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.]
1. [General Comment] Please provide a Site Data table on the road plans that contains as much
information from Section 14-302 and 14-303 of the Subdivision Ordinance, as relevant. This includes
the Tax Map parcel (TMP) number and magisterial district for each existing parcel; owner information;
zoning classification (including all the proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan approved
with ZMA201500007); all approved special use permits (SP201500025); zoning overlay districts; the
deed book and page number of the instrument creating all properties associated with the road plan; the
names of any water supply watersheds; etc. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Some of the
requested information is shown on Sheet C-100, but it is incomplete and is different than the Site Data
table on Sheet C-102. Please make the changes to the site information provided on C-100 as follows:
add a correct revision date to the "Code of Development" section of the data table — ZMA201500007
was revised on 10/13/2016 and approved on 11/9/2016. The Owner Information listed under the
Vicinity Map states that Riverbend Development owns all three parcels, but they do not own any of the
three TMPs associated with this road plan, correct ownership information is provided on Sheet C-102.
Please provide the full fourteen digit TMP number and list the owner information on Sheet C-100. State
the primary and overlay zoning districts, and the deed book and page number of the instrument creating
each property next to the fourteen digit TMP numbers and owner information requested. Update the
site data on Sheet C-102 so it matches the revised owner information, zoning classification, and property
records on Sheet C-100.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. There are some mistakes on the tables provided on C-100 and
C-102 to address this comment. The first column of the table for the 162.75 acre lot should state the
full fourteen digit new parcel number, which is 04600-00-00-019134. The Deed book and page column
should state DB 5011,170 for this parcel. The last row of the DB/PG column is blank for TMP 46-19133,
please provide this information. Also, under "Tax Map Parcels" on Sheet C-100, please change TMP
04600-00-00-01900 to the correct new TMP number which is 04600-00-00-019134.
2. [14-303 (C)] Please show the boundary lines of all existing parcels within the development. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. The existing parcel boundaries are not shown on any of the drawings (existing
conditions, overall site plan, grading, etc.) The parcel lines should be shown and include a label that
states the TMP number and the most recently recorded deed book and page numbers associated with
the property. Please be aware that there are large lot subdivisions in review right now for Brookhill
(SUB201700163, SUB201700166, and SUB201700167). If those plats are approved and recorded prior
to road plan approval, the new lot lines should be shown on all applicable drawings. The site data on
Sheet C-100 and C-102 should be updated with the new TMP numbers, owner information, zoning
classification, and recorded instrument that created the new lots.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The overall parcel boundaries appear correct on Sheet C-300,
but the property labels do not state the correct new TMP numbers or deed book and page numbers
for the most recently recorded plats on this sheet and several others. Please revise.
3. [ZMA201500007] The proffers shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104 are not the approved proffers
associated with the Brookhill rezoning. A copy of the approved proffers with owner signatures are
attached below. Please replace the proffer statement and exhibits on the road plans with the approved
proffers. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Pages 4, page 9, and page 10 of the approved proffers
are not shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104. Please revise. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. On Sheet C-100, please add the ZMA application number under the "Code of Development"
section. The approved application number is ZMA201500007. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. Add the correct revision date (10/13/2016) and approval date (11/9/2016) to the
"Code of Development" section shown on Sheet C-100. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. [SP201500025] On Sheet C-100, please add the Special Use Permit application number that was
approved to allow grading activities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The approved application
number is SP201500025. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Add the signed resolution and approved conditions of SP201500025 to Sheets C-103 and C-104.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a Proffer Narrative statement that identifies which proffers from
ZMA201500007 are being addressed with this set of road plans. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
A proffer narrative has been provided on Sheet C-102. However, per conversations between the
applicant and Planning/Zoning staff on December 15, 2017, staff requests that the applicant provide
a table listing each proffer by number and sub -letter and with a column stating what physical
improvements, fees, dedications, etc. are required for each proffer. A column listing the "trigger"
point for each specific proffer should be provided. The table should contain other columns that can
be filled in with the application number for the site plan or subdivision plat that completed the proffer.
Should the applicant have additional questions on how to format the table, please contact Rebecca
Ragsdale with the Zoning Division at rragsdale@albemarle.org.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Per applicant response to second review comments, the developer and
Bohler Engineering will work with Rebecca Ragsdale in the Zoning Division to create a proffer tracking
spreadsheet. This will be updated as subdivision and site plans are approved within Brookhill.
6. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a sheet that shows the approved Brookhill Zoning Map Amendment
Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2
7. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] Please amend the cross sections for all proposed roads in accordance with
Section 2.8 of the Brookhill Code of Development and the approved Brookhill rezoning Application Plan.
Please see VDOT comment #1 for additional information.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road A" is designated as a "Main Street Boulevard Entrance" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-306 for Road A do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets C-902 —
C-903. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation. Please identify which cross-
sections from the Code of Development will be used for each segment of the proposed Road A
on Sheets C-902 and C-903. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Code of Development
states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott,
kmcdermott@albemarle.ore, with the Planning Division to arranee a discussion with VDOT
rdine their reauest to make "Road A" a 35 mph road. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road B" is designated as the "North/South Connector Road" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-304 and C-305 for Road B do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets
C-903 — C-904. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation or on -street parking.
Please identify which cross-sections from the Code of Development will be used for each
segment of the proposed Road B on Sheets C-903 and C-904. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. The Code of Development states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed
limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning Division
to arrange a discussion with VDOT regarding their request to make "Road B" a 35 mph road.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
8. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8, and 18-4.12.16] The Road B profile shown on Sheet C-305 shows parallel
parking spaces being installed on both side of the street. Please provide a calculation of how many
spaces are being installed and provide an enlarged detail showing the dimensions of each parking space
in compliance with County design standards. As a reminder, the Zoning Ordinance requires parallel
parking spaces to be a minimum 9' in width, and 20' in length. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please amend the cross sections on Pages C-903 and C-904 for Road B as necessary to depict the
location and dimensions of the on -street parking. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007] The initial site plan currently in review for Phase 4A of Brookhill (SDP2017000047)
shows the same landscaping installation along Road A and Road B as depicted on the road plans. Both
plans also show installation of buffer vegetation along Polo Grounds Road. Please be aware that any
landscaping shown on the Road Plans will be bonded as part of the road improvements. The vegetation
proposed on the road plans in these areas can still be shown on the site plans, but should include a note
stating something such as "vegetation shown within the Road A right-of-way to be installed per road
plans SUB201700117." Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Staff agrees with the applicants response,
but asks that notes be provided on the Landscape Plans as follows:
"1. All required plantings within the right of way for the portions of Roads A and B proposed with
SUB201700117 will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"2. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road between Route 29 and the entrance for Road B
will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"3. Required plantings within the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks
4A, 4B, and 8A."
"4. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road east of the intersection of Road B will be shown
on the future final site plans and plats for the blocks that border Polo Grounds Road."
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Please provide a note stating whether the landscaping will be installed with the final site plan
for each block, or with the road plans. Street trees within public right-of-ways should be done
as part of the road plans. Buffer plantings may be installed with either the road plans or final
site plans, but staff requests information from the applicant as to the intended timing for this.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, a note will be added to all final site plans
moving forward stating which trees have been previously approved and planted with existing
road clans. The trees will be labeled as existine on the final site clans to avoid confusion.
10. [ZMA201500007 & 18-32.7.9.5] On Sheet C-701, please move the match line label for the match line
corresponding to Sheet C-703. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [ZMA201500007] Please revise the Landscape drawings, Sheets C-701 — C-705 so that each roadway
section has a Landscape Schedule that specifies the species, quantity, and spacing of landscaping
proposed only in that road section. Rev. 1: Please remove all references to building setbacks on Sheets
C-701 through C-705. Per pages 16-18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will
be measured from the buffer line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each
individual block. The 100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo
Grounds Road buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels
alone the northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer."
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
The quantity of trees provided in the Landscape Schedules are incorrect on Sheets C-701 through C-704.
For example, two QAC trees are provided along Road B on Sheet C-701 but the schedule does not reflect
this. Also, the landscape Schedule for Road B on Sheet C-702 states that 48 QAC trees are provided, but
only 22 trees are shown on this Landscaping section detail. Each Landscape Schedule should state the
exact quantity of each vegetation type provided on that Sheet. Please revise accordingly. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please revise all Landscape Schedules so that the Botanical Name and Common Name of each
species is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation. Rev. 1: Comment not
fully addressed. The landscape schedules provided do not state the height at time of installation
for the vegetation shown. Please add a column to each landscape schedule on Sheets C-701
through C-705. The proposed spacing of some vegetation is not provided in the landscape
schedules on Sheet C-704, please revise.
The Japanese Zelkova trees along Road A and the Sawtooth Oak trees along Road B are not
species of large shade trees that are on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. Please
revise the proposed species as necessary. Please find the list to approved species HERE.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. On Sheet C-702, the two Stella Lane street tree labels
for the ten northernmost trees states "5 UPD" instead of "UAP." Please revise.
On Sheet C-705, the total quantity of UAP trees along Stella Lane is 48, not 22, please revise.
b. Please add a column to the Landscape Schedules stating the spacing requirements for street
trees, in accordance with Section 2.8.1 and 3.2.1 of the Code of Development, and Section
32.7.9.5 the Zoning Ordinance. As a reminder, one large shade tree is required every 50' of road
frontage per the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [ZMA201500007] The Road B typical section on Sheet C-903 shows a "variable width" plating strip on
both sides of the street. Per Section 14-422 (D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the planting strip must be
a minimum of 6' in width. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.7.9.5 (d) & 14-422 (D)] The Road B section shown on Sheet C-703 shows three (3) QAC street trees
planted behind the sidewalk along the west side of the street. As required by the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances, street trees along public streets must be planted between the curb and the sidewalk in a
planting strip that is a minimum 6' in width. Please revise the locations or explain why they are located
there. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.7.9.5 (d)] The spacing of street trees shown in the Road B section on Sheet C-703 does not comply
with the 50' spacing requirement. Please amend as necessary so that trees are planted every 50' on both
sides of the street. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.7.9.5 (d) and 14-422 (D)] Please add an additional street tree to both sides of the north end of Road
B on Sheet C-704 in order to satisfy the 50' spacing requirement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a narrative regarding grading and landscaping removal/installation
within the 100' wide Route 29 buffer and the 30' wide Polo Grounds Road buffer.
a. Please provide an enlarged exhibit showing all required buffers within Brookhill and highlight
the portions of each buffer that will have landscaping installed as part of the road plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. The Route 29 buffer plantings have been removed from the road plans.
The proposed Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer is partially provided between the intersection
with Route 29 and Road B. This section of the Polo Grounds buffer will be reviewed and
approved with the road plans. The other portions of the Polo Grounds buffer will be provided
on the site plans for future blocks around Polo Grounds Road.
b. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 100' Route 29 buffer boundary line across the grading and landscaping drawings. There should
be a line inside of the buffer for the boundary between the 70' undisturbed portion and the 30'
portion that can be graded and disturbed. The existing tree line should be shown, and all areas
that will be re -planted as part of the road plan landscaping should be called out. If the buffer
landscaping will be installed as part of the site plans for each block, please state so on the
landscaping plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, the Route 29 buffer
plantings have been remove from these road plans and will be shown on the final site plans
for each block that gets developed along Route 29. Staff will review the buffer plantings during
the final site plan for review for those blocks.
c. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 30' wide buffer boundary line along Polo Grounds Road on the grading and landscaping
drawings. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development,
all buffers shall be measured from the property lines or public right of way. Sheet C-106 shows
a buffer line that is labeled as 30' wide along Polo Grounds Road, but the buffer line is not
uniform for the entire length of Polo Grounds Road. Please adjust the buffer line shown so that
it is 30' wide across the entire frontage of Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please remove the word "setback" from all buffer labels shown on Sheet C-106. Per pages 16-
18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will be measured from the buffer
line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each individual block. The
100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo Grounds Road
buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels along the
northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer." Rev.
2: Comment addressed.
Please add the Ashwood Connector buffer to Sheet C-106. Please consult the Application Plan,
the buffer table on page 19 of the Code of Development, and Figure C of the approved proffers
for the location of the Ashwood Connector Buffer. It is required to be a minimum 30' in width
between the adjacent lots and the proposed Ashwood Connector Road. Rev. 2: Comment not
fully addressed. Please show the east side of the buffer as a minimum 30' wide buffer, it is
currently shown as 20.'
ver section ZA.Z of the Code of Development (page 19), the Polo Grounds Road buffer is
supposed to be a mixture of undisturbed vegetation and a replanted landscaping. New plantings
are subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Can information on the existing size,
location, and types of landscaping within the 30' buffer be provided? The proposed landscaping
is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, and staff requests additional information
in order to verify that the proposed landscaping will meet the requirements of the ode of
Development. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. The Director of Planning has reviewed the
proposed landscaping to be installed within the Polo Grounds Road buffer and has no
objections.
Please rename the "Landscape Buffer Schedule" table on Sheet C-704 to state "Polo Grounds
Landscape Buffer Schedule. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Add a note to the Landscaping Plans, Sheets C-701 and C-704 stating "Required plantings within
the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks 4A, 4B, and 8A." Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
Clarify the proposed property line location and the 30' Polo Grounds Road buffer boundary line
on all landscaping drawings. The buffer line and labels are indistinguishable due to the varying
topographical lines and other information visible on these drawings. As a reminder, the buffer
line is measured 30' from the road right-of-way/property line. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
17. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #2A] A portion of the primitive trail network along Polo Grounds Road is
shown as an improvement that will be constructed as part of the road construction. Please provide an
exhibit that shows all proposed primitive trails within Brookhill as depicted on the ZMA Application Plan.
The exhibit should highlight the portions of the primitive trail that will be constructed with this road
plan. This will allow staff to account for what trails need to be constructed on future phases of Brookhill.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Proffer Statement on Sheet C-103 states that no primitive
trails are proposed within the greenway as part of this plan. However, Sheet C-107 shows that the 10'
multi -use path that is shown on the rezoning application plan will be installed with this road plan. Proffer
#2A states that construction of the primitive trail must commence concurrently with the first block that
gets developed within the project. Please provide more information regarding when the trail network
will begin installation. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Please highlight Road A and B on Sheet C-107 and note that these are the only improvements under
review as part of Sub201700117. Please gray out all other blocks and sections, and note that the lot
lines, building footprints, and streets are conceptual only and may change on future site plan and
subdivision plats. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
18. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #1E] Please provide information regarding the proposed timing for
construction and installation of the transit stop. The Brookhill Application Plan shows a generalized
location for the transit stop at the northeast corner of the traffic circle at the intersection of Road A and
Road B. Has the applicant discussed the location and design with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT)? Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
19. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for Road A and Road B, an Application ForA Special Lot
must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the special lot
application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan application. The
applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road plan approval
but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be aware that any
other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along Road A or Road B will not be approved
until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any final site plans proposing uses
on lots that would use frontage of Road A or Road B. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss
timing of the right-of-way dedication. Rev. 1.: Please provide information on when the Application for a
Special Lot will be submitted in order to dedicate the right of way for the public streets proposed as part
of this road plan. Rev. 2: Per applicant response, this comment has been acknowledged. The right-of-
way for Roads A and B will need to be approved through an Application for A Special Lot prior to any
further final subdivision plats or final site plans for lots along either road that are using the right-of-
ways for frontage purposes.
Please contact Cameron Langille in the Planning Division by using blangille@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3432 for further information.
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Brookhill Section 1 Block 4A
Project file number: SUB201700117
Plan preparer:
Bohler Engineering [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.:
Riverbend Management [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Date Received:
01 Aug 2017
Rev. 1 Date Received:
27 Oct 101 7
Rev. 2 Date Received:
15 Mar 2018
Date of comments:
26 Sepi /-ui i
Rev. 1 Comments:
19 Dec 2017
Rev. 2 Comments: 29 Mar 2018
Ryan,
We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments:
Engineering (Rev. 1: Emily Cox; Rev. 2: Bobby Jocz) — Rev. 2: Requested Changes
1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before road plan can be approved. The WPO should be
an amendment to the currently submitted WPO Plan and should include all work associated with the
roads. The road plan should reference the WPO number (WP02017000xx) and the WPO Plan should
reference the road plan number (SUB2017000xx). Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
Rev 2: Comment Addressed (Note decision made to allow submission of VSMP Road
Improvement Plan as separate WPO (WP0201800013)
2. Remove Erosion & Sediment Control sheets from the road plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. Show a clear line depicting the different sources of topography and where each was used on the road
plan (existing survey vs. anticipated proposed WPO grading). Rev. 1: Please revise the note. The
note says there is a hatch/shaded area, however, there appears to just be a line with a note and
arrow on each page. This line, note and arrow are sufficient. Rev.2: Comment Addressed
4. The note regarding the source of the topography should be on every sheet. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed, however there is a note on some sheets without any topography. Please remove when
there is no topography. Rev. 2: Comment Addressed
5. Clearly identify any parking spaces. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Clearly identify all buffers, steep slopes, etc. as outlined in the ZMA and WPO Plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
7. Please ensure that all proposed cross sections match the actual plan view of the road. Also, ensure
these sections match what is outlined in the Code of Development. Refer to planning comment #7 for
more detail. Rev 1: Comment addressed.
8. Please update the road -phasing plan as outlined in the proffers. It appears you will be completing
Phase I & IV with this set of plans. Rev. 1: A phase line is shown on sheet C-107, but is not clear
anywhere else.
Rev. 2: Partially addressed, phase line is difficult to identify, please make bold
9. Easements will be necessary for the culvert outfalls and the walls that are outside of the ROW. Rev. 1:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
These easements will need to be recorded before plan approval. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
10. The ZMA shows sidewalk/trails on both sides of Polo Grounds Road, however the road plan only
shows it on one side. Please revise and ensure you are matching what was approved on the ZMA. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
11. Please provide a draft maintenance agreement for the salamander crossing for review by the County
Attorney's office. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. This will need to be executed before plan
approval. Rev. 2: Salamander crossing maintenance agreement will be provided under separate
cover.
12. Show drainage divides and designs for the culverts crossing Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
13. Ensure that any proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 specify ground cover, not grass on the plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
14. Provide a legend for the landscape plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, landscape plan
does not show any plantings in the median while typical sections show plantings. Please clarify.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed
15. Suggest keeping the velocity of all storm pipes below 12 ft/s if possible. Rev. 1: If VDOT approved
.-- "— '2OW, then -,)unty will also approve. Rev. 2: Comment addressed
16. Rev. 2: [Sheet 603] Drainage divide STM B-32 is labeled twice. Please correct.
Planning (Cameron Langille) — Rev 2: Pending
1. See attached comment letter dated 09/21/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated
12/18/17.
VDOT (Adam Moore) — Rev 2: Pending
1. See attached comment letter dated 9/08/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated 12/7/17.
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer) — Rev 2: Pending
1. Fire Hydrants shall be required on a 500' spacing starting with a hydrant located at the intersection
of Polo Grounds Road/Road B and Rt. 29/ Road A. Rev. 1: No objection.
ACSA (Richard Nelson) — Rev 2: Pending. Under Review per email 3/27/18
1. Still under review. Did not receive comments or approval yet. Rev. 1: Still under review.
GIS (Elisa Kiewra) — Rev 2: Requested Changes
1. See attached comment letter dated 8/14/17. Rev. 1: See attached letter dated 11/2/17. Rev.2: See
Letter Dated 03/21/2018
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department--cdengmTo
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox@albemarle.org) or by
phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565.
Sincerely,
Emily Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SUB201700117
TMP: 04600-00-00-01800, 04600-00-00-01900
04600-00-00-018AO
DATE: 8/14/2017
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra@albemarle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/ads
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
STELLA LN has been reserved, Road A will still need a name and I see it is in process in the
notes.
This site will require a one (1) new private road name for Road "A". Per Sec. 7-200-B of the
County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed
to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named."
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
httns://www.albemarle.ora/unload/imaaes/Forms Center/Departments/GeoaraDhic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Namina and Property Numberina Ordinance and Manual.Ddf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: htti)://www.albemarle.ora/albemarle/upload/imaaes/webapps/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.org/
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Brookhill Section 1 Block 4A
Project file number: SUB201700117
Plan preparer:
Bohler Engineering [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.:
Riverbend Management [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Date Received:
01 Aug 2017
Rev. 1 Date Received:
27 Oct 2017
Date of comments:
26 Sept 2017
Rev. 1 Comments:
19 Dec 2017
Ryan,
We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments:
Engineering (Emily Cox)
1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before road plan can be approved. The WPO should
be an amendment to the currently submitted WPO Plan and should include all work associated
with the roads. The road plan should reference the WPO number (WP02017000xx) and the WPO
Plan should reference the road plan number (SUB2017000xx). Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
2. Remove Erosion & Sediment Control sheets from the road plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. Show a clear line depicting the different sources of topography and where each was used on the
road plan (existing survey vs. anticipated proposed WPO grading). Rev. 1: Please revise the note.
The note says there is a hatch/shaded area, however, there appears to just be a line with a
note and arrow on each page. This line, note and arrow are sufficient.
4. The note regarding the source of the topography should be on every sheet. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed, however there is a note on some sheets without any topography. Please remove
when there is no topography.
5. Clearly identify any parking spaces. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Clearly identify all buffers, steep slopes, etc. as outlined in the ZMA and WPO Plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
7. Please ensure that all proposed cross sections match the actual plan view of the road. Also, ensure
these sections match what is outlined in the Code of Development. Refer to planning comment #7
for more detail. Rev 1: Comment addressed.
8. Please update the road -phasing plan as outlined in the proffers. It appears you will be completing
Phase I & IV with this set of plans. Rev. 1: A phase line is shown on sheet C-107, but is not
clear anywhere else.
9. Easements will be necessary for the culvert outfalls and the walls that are outside of the ROW.
Rev. 1: These easements will need to be recorded before plan approval.
10. The ZMA shows sidewalk/trails on both sides of Polo Grounds Road, however the road plan only
shows it on one side. Please revise and ensure you are matching what was approved on the ZMA.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. Please provide a draft maintenance agreement for the salamander crossing for review by the
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
County Attorney's office. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. This will need to be executed
before plan approval.
12. Show drainage divides and designs for the culverts crossing Polo Grounds Road. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
13. Ensure that any proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 specify ground cover, not grass on the plan. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
14. Provide a legend for the landscape plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, landscape plan
does not show any plantings in the median while typical sections show plantings. Please
clarify.
15. Suggest keeping the velocity of all storm pipes below 12 ft/s if possible. Rev. 1: If VDOT
approved velocities in the ROW, then the county will also approve.
Planning (Cameron Langille)
1. See attached comment letter dated 09/21/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated
12/18/17.
VDOT (Adam Moore)
1. See attached comment letter dated 9/08/17. Rev. 1: See attached comment letter dated 12/7/17.
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer)
1. Fire Hydrants shall be required on a 500' spacing starting with a hydrant located at the intersection
of Polo Grounds Road/Road B and Rt. 29/ Road A. Rev. 1: No objection.
ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
1. Still under review. Did not receive comments or approval yet. Rev. 1: Still under review.
GIS (Elisa Kiewra)
1. See attached comment letter dated 8/14/17. Rev. 1: See attached letter dated 11/2/17.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department--cdengno
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox@albemarle.org) or by
phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565.
Sincerely,
Emily Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Emily Cox (ecox@albemarle.org)
From: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 21, 2017
First Revision: December 18, 2017
Subject: SUB201700117 Brookhill Development — Polo Grounds Road and Section 1 Road Plans
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced 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.]
1. [General Comment] Please provide a Site Data table on the road plans that contains as much
information from Section 14-302 and 14-303 of the Subdivision Ordinance, as relevant. This includes
the Tax Map parcel (TMP) number and magisterial district for each existing parcel; owner information;
zoning classification (including all the proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan approved
with ZMA201500007); all approved special use permits (SP201500025); zoning overlay districts; the
deed book and page number of the instrument creating all properties associated with the road plan; the
names of any water supply watersheds; etc. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Some of the
requested information is shown on Sheet C-100, but it is incomplete and is different than the Site Data
table on Sheet C-102. Please make the changes to the site information provided on C-100 as follows:
add a correct revision date to the "Code of Development" section of the data table — ZMA201500007
was revised on 10/13/2016 and approved on 11/9/2016. The Owner Information listed under the
Vicinity Map states that Riverbend Development owns all three parcels, but they do not own any of
the three TMPs associated with this road plan, correct ownership information is provided on Sheet C-
102. Please provide the full fourteen digit TMP number and list the owner information on Sheet C-
100. State the primary and overlay zoning districts, and the deed book and page number of the
instrument creating each property next to the fourteen digit TMP numbers and owner information
requested. Update the site data on Sheet C-102 so it matches the revised owner information, zoning
classification, and property records on Sheet C-100.
2. [14-303 (C)] Please show the boundary lines of all existing parcels within the development. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. The existine parcel boundaries are not shown on anv of the drawines
(existing conditions, overall site plan, grading, etc.) The parcel lines should be shown and include a
label that states the TMP number and the most recently recorded deed book and page numbers
associated with the property. Please be aware that there are large lot subdivisions in review right now
for Brookhill (SUB201700163, SUB201700166, and SUB201700167). If those plats are approved and
recorded prior to road plan approval, the new lot lines should be shown on all applicable drawings.
The site data on Sheet C-100 and C-102 should be updated with the new TMP numbers, owner
information, zoning classification, and recorded instrument that created the new lots.
3. [ZMA201500007] The proffers shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104 are not the approved proffers
associated with the Brookhill rezoning. A copy of the approved proffers with owner signatures are
attached below. Please replace the proffer statement and exhibits on the road plans with the approved
proffers. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Pages 4, page 9, and page 10 of the approved proffers
are not shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104. Please revise.
a. On Sheet C-100, please add the ZMA application number under the "Code of Development"
section. The approved application number is ZMA201500007. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. Add the correct revision date (10/13/2016) and approval date (11/9/2016) to the
"Code of Development" section shown on Sheet C-100.
4. [SP201500025] On Sheet C-100, please add the Special Use Permit application number that was
approved to allow grading activities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The approved application
number is SP201500025. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Add the signed resolution and approved conditions of SP201500025 to Sheets C-103 and C-104.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007] Please provide a Proffer Narrative statement that identifies which proffers from
ZMA201500007 are being addressed with this set of road plans. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
A proffer narrative has been provided on Sheet C-102. However, per conversations between the
applicant and Planning/Zoning staff on December 15, 2017, staff requests that the applicant provide
a table listing each proffer by number and sub -letter and with a column stating what physical
improvements, fees, dedications, etc. are required for each proffer. A column listing the "trigger"
point for each specific proffer should be provided. The table should contain other columns that can
be filled in with the application number for the site plan or subdivision plat that completed the proffer.
Should the applicant have additional questions on how to format the table, please contact Rebecca
Ragsdale with the Zoning Division at rragsdale@albemarle.org.
6. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a sheet that shows the approved Brookhill Zoning Map Amendment
Application Plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] Please amend the cross sections for all proposed roads in accordance with
Section 2.8 of the Brookhill Code of Development and the approved Brookhill rezoning Application Plan.
Please see VDOT comment #1 for additional information.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road A" is designated as a "Main Street Boulevard Entrance" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-306 for Road A do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets C-902 —
C-903. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation. Please identify which cross-
sections from the Code of Development will be used for each segment of the proposed Road A
on Sheets C-902 and C-903. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Code of Development
states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott,
kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning Division to arrange a discussion with VDOT
regarding their request to make "Road A" a 35 mph road.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road B" is designated as the "North/South Connector Road" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-304 and C-305 for Road B do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets
C-903 — C-904. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation or on -street parking.
Please identify which cross-sections from the Code of Development will be used for each
segment of the proposed Road B on Sheets C-903 and C-904. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. The Code of Development states that this road be designed with a 25 mph speed
limit. Please contact Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org, with the Planning
Division to arrange a discussion with VDOT regarding their request to make "Road B" a 35 mph
road.
8. [ZMA2015u0007 Section 2.8, and 18-4.12.16] The Road B profile shown on Sheet C-305 shows parallel
parking spaces being installed on both side of the street. Please provide a calculation of how many
spaces are being installed and provide an enlarged detail showing the dimensions of each parking space
in compliance with County design standards. As a reminder, the Zoning Ordinance requires parallel
parking spaces to be a minimum 9' in width, and 20' in length. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please amend the cross sections on Pages C-903 and C-904 for Road B as necessary to depict the
location and dimensions of the on -street parking. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[ZMA201500007] The initial site plan currently in review for Phase 4A of Brookhill (SDP2017000047)
shows the same landscaping installation along Road A and Road B as depicted on the road plans. Both
plans also show installation of buffer vegetation along Polo Grounds Road. Please be aware that any
landscaping shown on the Road Plans will be bonded as part of the road improvements. The vegetation
proposed on the road plans in these areas can still be shown on the site plans, but should include a note
stating something such as "vegetation shown within the Road A right-of-way to be installed per road
plans SUB201700117." Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Staff agrees with the applicants
but asks that notes be provided on the Landscape Plans as follows:
"1. All required plantings within the right of way for the portions of Roads A and B proposed with
SUB201700117 will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"2. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road between Route 29 and the entrance for Road B
will be bonded and installed as depicted on this plan."
"3. Required plantings within the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks
4A, 4B, and 8A."
"4. The 30' perimeter buffer along Polo Grounds Road east of the intersection of Road B will be shown
on the future final site plans and plats for the blocks that border Polo Grounds Road."
a. riease proviae a note stating wnetner ine ianascaping wiii oe instaiiea wan ine final site plan
for each block, or with the road plans. Street trees within public right-of-ways should be done
as part of the road plans. Buffer plantings may be installed with either the road plans or final
site plans, but staff requests information from the applicant as to the intended timing for this.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, a note will be added to all final site plans
moving forward stating which trees have been previously approved and planted with existing
road plans. The trees will be labeled as existing on the final site plans to avoid confusion.
10. [ZMA201500007 & 18-32.7.9.5] On Sheet C-701, please move the match line label for the match line
corresponding to Sheet C-703. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [ZMA201500007] Please revise the Landscape drawings, Sheets C-701 — C-705 so that each roadway
section has a Landscape Schedule that specifies the species, quantity, and spacing of landscaping
proposed only in that road section. Rev. 1: Please remove all references to building setbacks on Sheets
C-701 through C-705. Per pages 16-18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will
be measured from the buffer line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each
individual block. The 100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo
Grounds Road buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels
alone the northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter buffer."
The quantity of trees provided in the Landscape Schedules are incorrect on Sheets C-701 through C-
704. For example, two QAC trees are provided along Road B on Sheet C-701 but the schedule does
not reflect this. Also, the landscape Schedule for Road B on Sheet C-702 states that 48 QAC trees are
provided, but only 22 trees are shown on this Landscaping section detail. Each Landscape Schedule
should state the exact quantity of each vegetation type provided on that Sheet. Please revise
accordingly.
a. Please revise all Landscape Schedules so that the Botanical Name and Common Name of each
species is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation. Rev. 1: Comment not
fully addressed. The landscape schedules provided do not state the height at time of
installation for the vegetation shown. Please add a column to each landscape schedule on
Sheets C-701 through C-705. The proposed spacing of some vegetation is not provided in the
landscape schedules on Sheet C-704. please revise.
The Japanese Zelkova trees along Road A and the Sawtooth Oak trees along Road B are not
species of large shade trees that are on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List.
Please revise the proposed species as necessary. Please find the list to approved species HERE.
b. Please add a column to the Landscape Schedules stating the spacing requirements for street
trees, in accordance with Section 2.8.1 and 3.2.1 of the Code of Development, and Section
32.7.9.5 the Zoning Ordinance. As a reminder, one large shade tree is required every 50' of road
frontage per the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [ZMA201500007] The Road B typical section on Sheet C-903 shows a "variable width" plating strip on
both sides of the street. Per Section 14-422 (D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the planting strip must be
a minimum of 6' in width. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. [32.7.9.5 (d) & 14-422 (D)] The Road B section shown on Sheet C-703 shows three (3) QAC street trees
planted behind the sidewalk along the west side of the street. As required by the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances, street trees along public streets must be planted between the curb and the sidewalk in a
planting strip that is a minimum 6' in width. Please revise the locations or explain why they are located
there. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. [32.7.9.5 (d)] The spacing of street trees shown in the Road B section on Sheet C-703 does not comply
with the 50' spacing requirement. Please amend as necessary so that trees are planted every 50' on both
sides of the street. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.7.9.5 (d) and 14-422 (D)] Please add an additional street tree to both sides of the north end of Road
B on Sheet C-704 in order to satisfy the 50' spacing requirement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a narrative regarding grading and landscaping removal/installation
within the 100' wide Route 29 buffer and the 30' wide Polo Grounds Road buffer.
a. Please provide an enlarged exhibit showing all required buffers within Brookhill and highlight
the portions of each buffer that will have landscaping installed as part of the road plans. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed. The Route 29 buffer plantings have been removed from the road plans.
The proposed Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer is partially provided between the intersection
4
with Route 29 and Road B. This section of the Polo Grounds buffer will be reviewed and
approved with the road plans. The other portions of the Polo Grounds buffer will be provided
on the site plans for future blocks around Polo Grounds Road.
b. In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 100' Route 29 buffer boundary line across the grading and landscaping drawings. There should
be a line inside of the buffer for the boundary between the 70' undisturbed portion and the 30'
portion that can be graded and disturbed. The existing tree line should be shown, and all areas
that will be re -planted as part of the road plan landscaping should be called out. If the buffer
landscaping will be installed as part of the site plans for each block, please state so on the
landscaping plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Per applicant response, the Route 29 buffer
plantings have been remove from these road plans and will be shown on the final site plans
for each block that Bets developed alone Route 29. Staff will review the buffer alantines durine
the final site plan for review for those blocks.
In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 30' wide buffer boundary line along Polo Grounds Road on the grading and landscaping
drawings. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development,
all buffers shall be measured from the property lines or public right of way. Sheet C-106 shows
a buffer line that is labeled as 30' wide along Polo Grounds Road, but the buffer line is not
uniform for the entire length of Polo Grounds Road. Please adjust the buffer line shown so
that it is 30' wide across the entire frontaee of Polo Grounds Road.
Please remove the word "setback" from all buffer labels shown on Sheet C-106. Per pages 16-
18 of the Code of Development, building setbacks for all blocks will be measured from the
buffer line, and will be determined when plats and site plans come in for each individual block.
The 100' buffer line along Route 29 should state "Route 29 100' buffer." The Polo Grounds
Road buffer label should state "Polo Grounds Road 30' buffer." The perimeter buffer labels
along the northern and western boundaries of the development should state "30' perimeter
buffer."
Please add the Ashwood Connector buffer to Sheet C-106. Please consult the Application Plan,
the buffer table on page 19 of the Code of Development, and Figure C of the approved proffers
for the location of the Ashwood Connector Buffer. It is required to be a minimum 30' in width
between the adjacent lots and the proposed Ashwood Connector Road.
Per Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development (page 19), the Polo Grounds Road buffer is
supposed to be a mixture of undisturbed vegetation and a replanted landscaping. New
plantings are subiect to the approval of the Director of Planning. Can information on the
existing size, location, and types of landscaping within the 30' buffer be provided? The
proposed landscaping is subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, and staff requests
additional information in order to verify that the proposed landscaping will meet the
requirements of the ode of Development.
Please rename the "Landscape Buffer Schedule" table on Sheet C-704 to state "Polo Grounds
Landscape Buffer Schedule.
Add a note to the Landscaping Plans, Sheets C-701 and C-704 stating "Required plantings
within the 100' Route 29 buffer will be shown on the final site plans for Blocks 4A, 4B, and
8A."
Clarify the proposed property line location and the 30' Polo Grounds Road buffer boundary
line on all landscaping drawings. The buffer line and labels are indistinguishable due to the
varying topographical lines and other information visible on these drawings. As a reminder,
the buffer line is measured 30' from the road right-of-way/property line.
17. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #2A] A portion of the primitive trail network along Polo Grounds Road is
shown as an improvement that will be constructed as part of the road construction. Please provide an
exhibit that shows all proposed primitive trails within Brookhill as depicted on the ZMA Application Plan.
The exhibit should highlight the portions of the primitive trail that will be constructed with this road
plan. This will allow staff to account for what trails need to be constructed on future phases of Brookhill.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The Proffer Statement on Sheet C-103 states that no primitive
trails are proposed within the greenway as part of this plan. However, Sheet C-107 shows that the 10'
multi -use path that is shown on the rezoning application plan will be installed with this road plan.
Proffer #2A states that construction of the primitive trail must commence concurrently with the first
block that gets developed within the project. Please provide more information regarding when the
trail network will beein installation.
Please highlight Road A and B on Sheet C-107 and note that these are the only improvements under
review as part of Sub201700117. Please gray out all other blocks and sections, and note that the lot
lines, building footprints, and streets are conceptual only and may change on future site plan and
subdivision plats.
18. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #1E] Please provide information regarding the proposed timing for
construction and installation of the transit stop. The Brookhill Application Plan shows a generalized
location for the transit stop at the northeast corner of the traffic circle at the intersection of Road A and
Road B. Has the applicant discussed the location and design with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT)? Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
19. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for Road A and Road B, an Application ForA Special Lot
must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the special lot
application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan application. The
applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road plan approval
but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be aware that any
other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along Road A or Road B will not be approved
until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any final site plans proposing uses
on lots that would use frontage of Road A or Road B. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss
timing of the right-of-way dedication. Rev. 1.: Please provide information on when the Application for
a Special Lot will be submitted in order to dedicate the right of way for the public streets proposed as
part of this road plan.
Please contact Cameron Langille in the Planning Division by using blangille@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3432 for further information.
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
December 7, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Emily Cox, P.E.
Re: Polo Grounds Road Improvements & BrookhilI Section 1 Block 4A — Road Plan
SUB -2017-00117
Review #2
Dear Ms. Cox:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, and Culpeper District Traffic Engineering Section, has reviewed the above referenced
plan as submitted by Bohler Engineering, revised 26 October 20I7, and offers the following
comments:
Land Use
1. Road A and Road B are to be designed as Collector roads. The minimum design speed
for collector roads is 30 mph; please see GS -7, Appendix A. Please correct the notes on
the plans that state that Road A and Road B are being designed at a 25 mph design speed.
2. Plans for the proposed dual 60" culverts must be approved by VDOT Culpeper District
Structure & Bridge Section prior to road plan approval, as well as plans for the proposed
pedestrian tunnel as previously noted. Note that providing multiple culverts does not
eliminate the Structure & Bridge approval requirement.
3. Please provide more detail concerning the proposed pedestrian tunnel as it relates to the
provided culvert report, the nearby double 60" culvert, and plans for a minimum amount
of drainage in to the pedestrian path.
4. In reference to the response to previous comment No. 5, are there any modified or
nonstandard endwalls being proposed?
5. It does not appear that Culvert B50 -B52 has the required 18" minimum allowable
freeboard. Also, it appears that 3 of the culverts are oversized as their Hw/D is less than
1.0, please explain.
6. Intersection sight distance lines and profiles are required for each proposed entrance in
addition to each proposed intersection. The decision point should be located 14.5' from
the edge of the travel lane of the street being intersected; the decision point for the last
proposed entrance on to Polo Grounds Rd. is incorrect. Also, please include decision
point offset dimensions.
7. Provide the VDOT WP -2 Standard detail and show the required area of mill & overlay on
the plans.
8. The Drainage Manual states that pipe velocities should not exceed 10 fps.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
December 7, 2017
Emily Cox, P.E.
Page 2
9. Culverts need to be counter -sunk per the VDOT Drainage Manual, please show and
notate this on plans.
10. Entrance spacing relative to the roundabout should be measured to the edge of the outer
circle.
11. Parallel parking is not permitted within 300 feet of the roundabout along the exit
travelway.
12. Provide pavement design calculations. Note that collector roads must be designed using
the 1993 AASHTO Design Method, not the Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision &
Secondary Roads. Additionally, please note that final designs must be based on in place
material at the time of construction.
13. As previously noted, a signal plan must be provided and approved by the VDOT
Culpeper District Traffic Engineering Section prior to permit issuance.
14. Which provided MOT plan will be used for the curb work on the west side of Route 29 at
the Rio Mills intersection? A more specific MOT plan is likely necessary for this area.
15. Sheet C-900 "Post Development Drainage Map" does not appear to be post development
as it does not show Roads A & B.
16. The channelization island at the Rio Mills -Route 29 intersection does not meet the
minimum design requirements; please see Appendix F, Figure 4-4, page F-93.
Roundabout
17. The roundabout entry lane width should be between 14 to 18 feet (See Page 6-24 of the
NCHRP Report 672) and the entry radii should be between 60 and 90 feet (See pages 6-
27 of NCHRP Report 672).
18. Provide the fastest path diagram and the AutoTurn vehicle tracking diagrams.
19. Bicycle lanes that are added or dropped at the entry and exit lanes should be terminated at
least 100ft before the circulation lane and the curb Iines pulled in to reduce the entry/exit
widths to meet the recommendations Iisted above.
20. A bicycle exit ramp can be added at the lane termini along with wider sidewalk around
the roundabout to provide bicyclists a choice (See diagram on Page 6-74 of the NCHRP
Report 672).
21. The yield sign (R 1-2) on several of the entries are not located at the yield line as required.
22. Note that a meeting can be arranged to discuss if needed.
Traffic Engineering
23. Response to previous comment No. 25 states that a signage details were added to sheet C-
907, this information was not found.
24. There appears to be a match -line typo on sheet C-314.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
December 7, 2017
Emily Cox, P.E.
Page 3
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,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
APPLICATION#
TMP:
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
SUB201700117
04600-00-00-01800, 04600-00-00-01900
04600-00-00-018AO
DATE: 11/2/2017
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra@albemarle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/ads
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
This site will require a two (2) new private road names for Roads "A" and "B". Per Sec. 7-200-B of
the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed
to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named."
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
httns://www.albemarle.ora/unload/imaaes/Forms Center/Departments/Geoaraphic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Namina and Property Numberina Ordinance and Manual.pdf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.org/
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Brookhill Section 1 Block 4A
Project file number: SUB201700117
Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.: Riverbend Management [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Date Received: 01 Aug 2017
Date of comments: 26 Sept 2017
Ryan,
We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments:
Engineering (Emily Cox)
1. WPO Plan must be submitted and approved before road plan can be approved. The WPO should
be an amendment to the currently submitted WPO Plan and should include all work associated
with the roads. The road plan should reference the WPO number (WP02017000xx) and the WPO
Plan should reference the road plan number (SUB2017000xx).
2. Remove Erosion & Sediment Control sheets from the road plan.
3. Show a clear line depicting the different sources of topography and where each was used on the
road plan (existing survey vs. anticipated proposed WPO grading).
4. The note regarding the source of the topography should be on every sheet.
5. Clearly identify any parking spaces.
6. Clearly identify all buffers, steep slopes, etc. as outlined in the ZMA and WPO Plans.
7. Please ensure that all proposed cross sections match the actual plan view of the road. Also, ensure
these sections match what is outlined in the Code of Development. Refer to planning comment #7
for more detail.
8. Please update the road -phasing plan as outlined in the proffers. It appears you will be completing
Phase I & IV with this set of plans.
9. Easements will be necessary for the culvert outfalls and the walls that are outside of the ROW.
10. The ZMA shows sidewalk/trails on both sides of Polo Grounds Road, however the road plan only
shows it on one side. Please revise and ensure you are matching what was approved on the ZMA.
11. Please provide a draft maintenance agreement for the salamander crossing for review by the
County Attorney's office.
12. Show drainage divides and designs for the culverts crossing Polo Grounds Road.
13. Ensure that any proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 specify ground cover, not grass on the plan.
14. Provide a legend for the landscape plan.
15. Suggest keeping the velocity of all storm pipes below 12 ft/s if possible.
Planning (Cameron Langille)
1. See attached comment letter dated 09/21/17.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
VDOT (Adam Moore)
1. See attached comment letter dated 9/08/17.
Fire Rescue (Robbie Gilmer)
1. Fire Hydrants shall be required on a 500' spacing starting with a hydrant located at the intersection
of Polo Grounds Road/Road B and Rt. 29/ Road A.
ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
1. Still under review. Did not receive comments or approval yet.
GIS (Elisa Kiewra)
1. See attached comment letter dated 8/14/17.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
hqp://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department--cdenMo
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me either by email (ecox@albemarle.org) or by
phone at 434-296-5832 ext. 3565.
Sincerely,
Emily Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
Phone 434-296-5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
Fax 434-972-4126
To: Emily Cox (ecox@albemarle.org)
From: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: September 21, 2017
Subject: SUB201700117 Brookhill Development— Polo Grounds Road and Section 1 Road Plans
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced 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.]
1. [General Comment] Please provide a Site Data table on the road plans that contains as much
information from Section 14-302 and 14-303 of the Subdivision Ordinance, as relevant. This includes
the Tax Map parcel (TMP) number and magisterial district for each existing parcel; owner information;
zoning classification (including all the proffers, Code of Development, and Application Plan approved
with ZMA201500007); all approved special use permits (SP201500025); zoning overlay districts; the
deed book and page number of the instrument creating all properties associated with the road plan; the
names of any water supply watersheds; etc.
2. [14-303 (C)] Please show the boundary lines of all existing parcels within the development.
3. [ZMA201500007] The proffers shown on Sheets C-103 and C-104 are not the approved proffers
associated with the Brookhill rezoning. A copy of the approved proffers with owner signatures are
attached below. Please replace the proffer statement and exhibits on the road plans with the approved
proffers.
a. On Sheet C-100, please add the ZMA application number under the "Code of Development"
section. The approved application number is ZMA201500007.
4. [SP201500025] On Sheet C-100, please add the Special Use Permit application number that was
approved to allow grading activities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The approved application
number is SP201500025.
a. Add the signed resolution and approved conditions of SP201500025 to Sheets C-103 and C-104.
5. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a Proffer Narrative statement that identifies which proffers from
ZMA201500007 are being addressed with this set of road plans.
6. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a sheet that shows the approved Brookhill Zoning Map Amendment
Application Plan.
1
7. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] Please amend the cross sections for all proposed roads in accordance with
Section 2.8 of the Brookhill Code of Development and the approved Brookhill rezoning Application Plan.
Please see VDOT comment #1 for additional information.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road A" is designated as a "Main Street Boulevard Entrance" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-306 for Road A do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets C-902 —
C-903. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation. Please identify which cross-
sections from the Code of Development will be used for each segment of the proposed Road A
on Sheets C-902 and C-903.
[ZMA201500007 Section 2.8] "Road B" is designated as the "North/South Connector Road" on
the Brookhill Application Plan. The applicable cross section from the Code of Development for
this street is Figure 10 on page 25 of the Brookhill Code of Development. The road profiles shown
on Sheet C-304 and C-305 for Road B do not appear to match the cross-sections shown on Sheets
C-903 — C-904. The cross-sections do not show any bike lane installation or on -street parking.
Please identify which cross-sections from the Code of Development will be used for each
segment of the proposed Road B on Sheets C-903 and C-904.
8. [ZMA201500007 Section 2.8, and 18-4.12.16] The Road B profile shown on Sheet C-305 shows parallel
parking spaces being installed on both side of the street. Please provide a calculation of how many
spaces are being installed and provide an enlarged detail showing the dimensions of each parking space
in compliance with County design standards. As a reminder, the Zoning Ordinance requires parallel
parking spaces to be a minimum 9' in width, and 20' in length.
a. Please amend the cross sections on Pages C-903 and C-904 for Road B as necessary to depict the
location and dimensions of the on -street parking.
9. [ZMA201500007] The initial site plan currently in review for Phase 4A of Brookhill (SDP2017000047)
shows the same landscaping installation along Road A and Road B as depicted on the road plans. Both
plans also show installation of buffer vegetation along Polo Grounds Road. Please be aware that any
landscaping shown on the Road Plans will be bonded as part of the road improvements. The vegetation
proposed on the road plans in these areas can still be shown on the site plans, but should include a note
stating something such as "vegetation shown within the Road A right-of-way to be installed per road
plans SUB201700117."
a. Please provide a note stating whether the landscaping will be installed with the final site plan
for each block, or with the road plans. Street trees within public right-of-ways should be done
as part of the road plans. Buffer plantings may be installed with either the road plans or final
site plans, but staff requests information from the applicant as to the intended timing for this.
10. [ZMA201500007 & 18-32.7.9.5] On Sheet C-701, please move the match line label for the match line
corresponding to Sheet C-703.
11. [ZMA201500007] Please revise the Landscape drawings, Sheets C-701 — C-705 so that each roadway
section has a Landscape Schedule that specifies the species, quantity, and spacing of landscaping
proposed only in that road section.
a. Please revise all Landscape Schedules so that the Botanical Name and Common Name of each
species is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation.
b. Please add a column to the Landscape Schedules stating the spacing requirements for street
trees, in accordance with Section 2.8.1 and 3.2.1 of the Code of Development, and Section
32.7.9.5 the Zoning Ordinance. As a reminder, one large shade tree is required every 50' of road
frontage per the Zoning Ordinance.
12. [ZMA201500007] The Road B typical section on Sheet C-903 shows a "variable width" plating strip on
both sides of the street. Per Section 14-422 (D) of the Subdivision Ordinance, the planting strip must be
uFt"fl'fI'i'Rl 171 I i .INFR111
13. [32.7.9.5(d)&14 -422(D)] The Road B section shown on Sheet C-703 shows three (3) QAC street trees
planted behind the sidewalk along the west side of the street. As required by the Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances, street trees along public streets must be planted between the curb and the sidewalk in a
planting strip that is a minimum 6' in width. Please revise the locations or explain why they are located
there.
14. [32.7.9.5 (d)] The spacing of street trees shown in the Road B section on Sheet C-703 does not comply
with the 50' spacing requirement. Please amend as necessary so that trees are planted every 50' on both
sides of the street.
15. [32.7.9.5 (d) and 14-422 (D)] Please add an additional street tree to both sides of the north end of Road
B on Sheet C-704 in order to satisfy the 50' spacing requirement.
16. [ZMA201500007] Please provide a narrative regarding grading and landscaping removal/installation
within the 100' wide Route 29 buffer and the 30' wide Polo Grounds Road buffer.
Please provide an enlarged exhibit showing all required buffers within Brookhill and highlight
the portions of each buffer that will have landscaping installed as part of the road plans.
In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 100' Route 29 buffer boundary line across the grading and landscaping drawings. There should
be a line inside of the buffer for the boundary between the 70' undisturbed portion and the 30'
portion that can be graded and disturbed. The existing tree line should be shown, and all areas
that will be re -planted as part of the road plan landscaping should be called out. If the buffer
landscaping will be installed as part of the site plans for each block, please state so on the
landscaping plans.
In Accordance with Section 2.4.2 on page 19 of the Code of Development, the plans should show
a 30' wide buffer boundary line along Polo Grounds Road on the grading and landscaping
drawings.
17. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #2A] A portion of the primitive trail network along Polo Grounds Road is
shown as an improvement that will be constructed as part of the road construction. Please provide an
exhibit that shows all proposed primitive trails within Brookhill as depicted on the ZMA Application Plan.
The exhibit should highlight the portions of the primitive trail that will be constructed with this road
plan. This will allow staff to account for what trails need to be constructed on future phases of Brookhill.
18. [ZMA201500007 — Proffer #1E] Please provide information regarding the proposed timing for
construction and installation of the transit stop. The Brookhill Application Plan shows a generalized
location for the transit stop at the northeast corner of the traffic circle at the intersection of Road A and
Road B. Has the applicant discussed the location and design with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT)?
19. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for Road A and Road B, an Application ForA Special Lot
must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the special lot
application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan application. The
applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road plan approval
but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be aware that any
other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along Road A or Road B will not be approved
until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any final site plans proposing uses
on lots that would use frontage of Road A or Road B. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss
timing of the right-of-way dedication.
Please contact Cameron Langille in the Planning Division by using blangille@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.
3432 for further information.
0
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
September 8, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Emily Cox, P.E.
Re: Polo Grounds Road Improvements & Brookhill Section 1 BIock 4A — Road Plan
SUB -2017-00117
Review #1
Dear Ms. Cox:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, and Culpeper District Traffic Engineering Section, has reviewed the above referenced
plan as submitted by Bohler Engineering, dated 31 July 2017, and offers the following
comments:
Land Use
1. All "connector" roads shown on the rezoning plan should be designed as Collector roads.
Entrance spacing may need to be revised.
2. Provide total buildout ADT for all roads.
3. Plans for the proposed pedestrian tunnel (designed by others) must be approved by
VDOT Culpeper District Structure and Bridge Section prior to road plan approval.
4. Plans for proposed culverts that exceed 36 square feet must be approved by VDOT
Culpeper District Structure & Bridge Section prior to road plan approval.
5. VDOT Standard endwalls must be called out on plans and profiles and the Standard
detail(s) provided.
6. Provide post development hydrologic calculations, including total buildout drainage
areas.
7. The profile for structure B02 -out needs an end section.
8. 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.
9. For culverts: Hw/D should not exceed 1.5 and at least 18" of freeboard is required. Please
revisit culverts on Route 643.
I0. Details and Standards from the latest revision of the Virginia Work Area Protection
Manual should be provided for the MOT plans. Those provided are from the 2009
revision. MOT plans are also needed for the work in and around the Route 29 ROW.
11. A signal plan must be provided and approved by the VDOT Culpeper District Traffic
Engineering Section prior to permit issuance.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
September 8, 2017
Emily Cox, P.E.
Page 2
Roundabout
12. The roundabout is too large for a single lane. Circulation lanes for a single lane
roundabout are generally between 16' and 20'. The appropriate size should be determined
by Sidra Intersection and auto -turn analyses.
13. A truck apron is required around the center island.
14. The roundabout slopes from west to east instead of from center outward. This can cause
drainage and freezing problems against the center island.
15. There does not appear to be enough deflection at the approaches to reduce the vehicle
speed entering the roundabout. The engineer may need to utilize reverse curves.
16. Required signage for roundabouts include the outside yield sign and the right chevron
sign in the center island at each approach.
17. The exit legs of the proposed roundabout should have dashed white lines and not solid
white Iines.
18. Please reference NCHRP Report 672 for roundabout design criteria.
Traffic Engineering
19. On Rte. 643, include the limits of the posted speed limit changes from the proposed
35mph to the existing posted speed of 45mph; A speed study is required to make changes
to the existing posted speed limit.
20. Proposed speed limit signs appear to be in excess on Rte. 643.
21. The detectable warning surface (CG -12) at NE corner of the intersection of
Rte.29/Rte.643 is missing.
22. The right turn lane from Rte. 643 to Rte. 29 is missing a stop bar.
23. Relocate the stop bar at the intersection of Road B and Rte. 643 closer to the proposed
cross walk to match the location of the decision point for intersection sight distance as
shown on Sheet C-823.
24. Keep right signage is recommended on raised median locations.
25. Provide dimensions of all proposed roadway signs.
26. The limits of gore areas are typically marked with solid double yellow line.
27. At the intersection of Rte. 643 and Road A, relocate the stop bar closer to the proposed
cross walk to match the location of the decision point for intersection sight distance as
shown on Sheet C-824.
28. The proposed centerline pavement marking should cut-off just prior to the intersection of
Rte. 643 and Road A and pick back up after the intersection.
29. The limits of gore areas are typically marked with solid double yellow line.
30. On Road B, why are some sections of the raised median marked with solid white line and
some marked with solid yellow line?
31.On Road A, the stop sign and pavement markings on the left turn lane should be
removed.
32. Show limits of the No Parking area on the proposed No Parking signs.
33. Proposed pedestrian crossing signs are for school zones; unless there is a school within
the vicinity, appropriate pedestrian crossing signs should be shown.
34. What sign is being proposed for the sign post shown between sta. 11+00 and sta. 12+00?
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
September 8, 2017
Emily Cox, P.E.
Page 3
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,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
11
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development`_
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SUB201700117
TMP: 04600-00-00-01800, 04600-00-00-01900
04600-00-00-018AO
DATE: 8/14/2017
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra@albemarle.orq
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/qds
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
This site will require a two (2) new private road names for Roads "A" and "B". Per Sec. 7-200-B of
the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed
to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named."
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
httDs://www.albemarle.ora/UD[oad/imaaes/Forms Center/Departments/GeoaraDhic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Namina and ProDerty Numberina Ordinance and Manual.Ddf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.org/
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
11
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development`_
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SUB201700117
TMP: 04600-00-00-01800, 04600-00-00-01900
04600-00-00-018AO
DATE: 8/14/2017
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra@albemarle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.ora/ads
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
This site will require a two (2) new private road names for Roads "A" and "B". Per Sec. 7-200-B of
the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed
to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named."
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
httDs://www.albemarle.ora/UD[oad/imaaes/Forms Center/Departments/GeoaraDhic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Namina and ProDerty Numberina Ordinance and Manual.Ddf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.org/
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.