Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900001 Action Letter 2019-06-24COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 June 24, 2019 Mitch Bowser, P.E. Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23225 mitchell.bowser@timmons.com RE: SDP201900001 Berkmar Drive Apartments — Initial Site Plan (revised, dated 3-29-2019) Dear Mr. Bowser: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments from the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) (attached) Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Albemarle County Zoning Division Albemarle County Building Inspections (attached) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority (attached) Virginia Department of Transportation (attached) Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that will be required to be resolved prior approval of the major site plan amendment Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, V."�t f'- �( x Cameron Langille Senior Planner Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Cameron Langille, blan ig lle(a)albemarle.org — Required changes: Comments to Be Addressed Prior to Initial Site Plan Approval: [General Comment] Prior to initial site plan approval, the zoning violation pertaining to the recreation areas required by the County for the mobile home park north of this site must be rectified. The site plan for the mobile home park showed the required recreation amenities being installed on TMP 32-53 and 32-54. However, these features were never installed. New development applications for developments on TMPs 32-53, 32-54, and 32- 55 cannot be approved by the County until this violation is resolved. A letter of revision is currently under review with the County to address this issue. Comments have been sent to the applicant, but the County is awaiting a final response. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The Letter of Revision (LOR) #1 for the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park was approved on June 24, 2019 and this addresses this comment. 2. [30.2.61 The project lies within the Airport Impact Area (AIA) Overlay Zoning District. Prior to approval of the initial site plan, the Albemarle County Planning Commission must determine that the proposed bonus level cluster multifamily development will reduce or be equivalent to hazard and/or noise impacts anticipated under standard level -conventional development of the underlying zoning district. a. A tentative date for the Planning Commission meeting has been set for March 19, 2019. The applicant should request a deferral so that the PC can act on the proposal. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Original comment is no longer applicable. The revised plans do not propose to use any bonus density or cluster development factors and is proposing 261 units at a density of 15 du/acre. No further action on the AIA Overlay District is needed. 3. [4.16.1] The site plan does not demonstrate compliance with the minimum recreation standards required for developments proposing more than 30 units at a density of more than 4 du/acre. A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet per unit of recreational area shall be provided in common area or open space on the site, this requirement not to exceed five (5) percent of the gross site area. The following facilities must be provided in the recreation areas: a. [4.16.2.1] One(]) tot lot shall be provided for the first thirty (30) units and for each additional fifty (50) units. A total of six (6) tot lots must be provided within proposed recreation areas. Each tot lot must measure at least 2,000 sq. ft. and shall be fenced. A total of 12,000 square feet of tot lot recreation area must be provided within the project. Each tot lost must contain the following equipment: i. One (1) swing (four (4) seats); ii. One (1) slide; iii. Two (2) climbers; iv. One (1) buckabout or whirl; v. Two (2) benches. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. The recreation substitution request (see attached exhibit) states that the proposed equipment will be shown in detail on the final site plan submittal. b. 14.16.2.21 One-half (112) court for basketball shall be provided for each one hundred (100) units. Each basketball court must consist of a thirty (30) foot by thirty (30) foot area of four (4) inch 21-A base and one and one half (1 112) inches bituminous concrete surface, and a basketball backboard and net installed at regulation height. A total of 1.5 basketball courts meeting the minimum sizes must be provided. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The acting Director of Planning, David Benish, has approved the substitution request (see exhibit attached to this letter). The proposed substitutions can take the place of the basketball courts. c. Calculations identifying the minimum recreation facilities required must be provided on the site plan. This includes the total quantity of tot lot equipment, and the total number of 1.5 basketball courts. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Proposed recreation areas are shown on the attached exhibit. Additional details will be shown on the final site plan. d. The recreation areas must be shown on all applicable drawings and comply with the equipment and size standards specified in Section 4.16.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. Additional details of the playground area will be provided with the final site plan. e. Detail cut sheets for the basketball courts and tot lot equipment must be provided in the construction details on the site plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. No basketball courts will be provided, per approval of the substitution request. Additional equipment details for the playground areas will be provided with the final site plan. f. [4.16.3] The following notes must be added to the site plan: i. "Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner if rental units or a homeowners' association if sale units." Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Please add these notes to the final site plan. ii. "Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy." Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Please add these notes to the final site plan. 4. [32.5.2 (a)] The setbacks shown on the drawing are incorrect. There is no 20' setback in the R-15 zoning district (this includes front, side and rear). The maximum front setback is "25 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way." The front setback should be applied on the eastern development boundary, which means Building 7 currently does not meet the maximum front setback. Building 7 will need to be moved closer to property lines to comply with the setback. Rev. 1: Comment no longer applicable. Zoning staff have reviewed the plan and determined the actual front setback. See comment #42 for additional details. a. At least one building must comply with the minimum and maximum front setback. Staff suggests reversing the location of building 7 and the row of parking east of Building 7. This will move the building closer to the property line to comply with the maximum 25' front setback. Rev. 1: Comment no longer applicable. Zoning staff have reviewed the plan and determined the actual front setback. See comment #42 for additional details. Comments to Be Addressed Prior to Final Site Plan Approval: 1. [32.5.2 (a)] Change the proposed use to "Bonus Level Cluster Development — Multifamily Dwellings" on Sheet C0.0. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Proiect no longer proposed to be a bonus level cluster development. 2. 132.5.2 (a)] Remove Note 22 from Sheet C0.0. Landscaping calculations should be shown on the landscape plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 3. [32.5.2 (a)] Please state the full Tax Map Parcel (TMP) numbers for all parcels within the development in Note 5 on Sheet C0.0. a. Please be aware that boundary line adjustment applications have been submitted to the County for review and approval related to this project. Prior to final site plan approval, the TMP numbers may need to be revised so that the plans accurately identify all properties that are within the project boundary. Rev. 1: Comment stands and must be addressed prior to final site plan approval. Per applicant response, the TMP numbers will be revised accordingly once the boundary line adjustment plat is approved and recorded. 4. [32.5.2 (a)] Prior to final site plan approval, a boundary line adjustment application must be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded that combines TMPs 32-55, 32-54, and the RA Rural Area zoned portion of TMP 32-52 into a single parcel of record that measures 17.4 acres. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The BLA plat, SUB201800226, is still under review with the Countv. This comment will be addressed once the plat is approved and recorded and the deed book and instrument number for the plat is referenced on the final site plan. All boundary lines should be updated as necessary prior to final site plan approval. 5. [32.5.2 (a)] Prior to final site plan approval, please update Note 24 on Sheet C0.0 so that it states the source of the topographic information/survey used on the plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2 (a)] Please add a note to Sheet C0.0 that states the instrument numbers (deed book and pages) for all recorded plats and deeds associated each parcel within the development. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per applicant response. the listed numbers will be revised on the final site clans as necessary once the BLA plat is approved and recorded. Please be aware that the easement plat referenced in comment #39 below should also be referenced on the final site plan once it is recorded. 7. [32.5.2 (a)] Add the primary zoning district to the property labels for all adjacent parcels shown on the plans. [32.5.2 (a)] See Engineering Division comments regarding the cemetery located at the southwest corner of "Parcel C." Parcel C appears to be the property currently known as TMP 32-53. See the recorded plat from Deed Book 5107, pages 617-620 for a survey of the cemetery location. Provide information that the necessary precautions required by law will be taken to avoid disturbances and preserve human remains. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. Cemetery location has been revised and shown on initial site plan and appears to be consistent with the cemetery location identified on the survey plat recorded in DB 5107 pages 617-620. Please be aware that the Code of Virginia, Section & 57-27.1 requires owners of private property on which graves or cemeteries are located to provide an access easement granting ingress and egress to certain parties wishing to visit the cemetery. Prior to final site plan approval, an access easement will need to be reviewed, approved, and recorded granting ingress and egress to the cemetery, in accordance with provisions of the Code of Virginia. Please visit the Code of Virginia using the following link for additional information: LINK. 9. [32.5.2 (a)] Please state the application numbers of all approved Special Use Permit and Zoning Map Amendments (ZMA) that apply to the development in Note 7 on Sheet C0.0. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per applicant response, all applicable ZMA and SP application numbers will be referenced on the final site plan prior to approval. a. TMPs 03200-00-00-05500, 03200-00-00-05400, and 03200-00-00-05300 are subject to the proffers associated with ZMA199200014. Per applicant response, all applicable ZMA and SP application numbers will be referenced on the final site plan prior to approval. b. TMPs 03200-00-00-05500, 03200-00-00-05400, and 03200-00-00-05300 are subject to the conditions of Special Use Permits SP199300013 and SP199500025. Per applicant response, all applicable ZMA and SP application numbers will be referenced on the final site plan prior to approval. c. Please add all pages of the approved Action Letter from SP199500025 as an exhibit on Sheet C1.0. Per applicant response, all applicable ZMA and SP application numbers will be referenced on the final site plan prior to approval. 10. [32.5.2 (a)] The proposed development appears to propose adding a portion of the existing TMP 32-52 (identified as "Parcel D" on Sheet C2.0) to the boundaries of the project. TMP 32-52 is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Zoning notes on Sheet C0.0 will need to state the acreage of RA land within the project. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 11. [32.5.2 (a)] Please state all applicable Overlay Zoning Districts that apply to parcels within the development in Note 7 on Sheet C0.0. a. The project is within the AIA -Airport Impact overlay Zoning District. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. There are areas of Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District within the boundaries of the development. These should be listed in Note 7, and shown on all applicable drawings where visible. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Areas of Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes are not shown on the site plan drawings. These features need to be shown and labeled on each drawing prior to final site plan approval. A note should be added to the plans stating the source used to identify the locations of both Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District areas (i.e. Albemarle County GIS, field run topographic survey, etc.) 12. [32.5.2 (a)] Add a note to Sheet C0.0 stating the minimum and maximum building and garage setback lines, and building separation requirements as specified in Section 4.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. This development is classified as non-infill and is subject to the following setbacks: a. Front Minimum (building): 5 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The exact language used in the comment should be added to the table on Sheet C0.0 for the front minimum building setback. b. Front Maximum (building): 25 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The exact language used in the comment should be added to the table on Sheet C0.0 for the front maximum building setback. c. Side Minimum: None; see Non-Infill Building Separation. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The exact language used in the comment should be added to the table on Sheet C0.0 for the side minimum buildinn setback. d. Side Maximum: None. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. e. Rear Minimum: 20 ft. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. f. Rear Maximum: None. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. g. Front loading garage minimum: 18 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way. Side loading garage: 5 feet from the right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside of the right-of-way. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. The setback note on Sheet C0.0 makes on mention of garage setbacks. h. Building Separation — Minimum: 10 feet, unless the building shares a common wall; provided that in the R-10 and R-15 districts if the abutting lot is zoned residential other than R-10 and R-15, rural areas, or the Monticello Historic district, any building that exceeds 35 feet in height shall be separated from any other building by 10 feet plus one foot for each foot the building exceeds 35 feet in height. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The exact language used in the comment should be added to the table on Sheet C0.0 for the side minimum building separation. 13. [32.5.2 (a)] Add a note to Sheet C0.0 stating the R-15 District height regulations, in accordance with Section 18.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. Maximum structure height: 65' Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. The minimum stepback requirements for any story that begins above forty (40) feet in height or for each story above the third story, whichever is less, in height shall be as provided in section 4.19. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 14. [32.5.2 (a)] Please show the correct minimum and maximum building and parking setback lines on Sheets C4.0 through C4.3 a. Setback lines should state whether each line is a front, side, or rear setback. Labels should also state whether each setback is a minimum or maximum setback line. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. Please revise the front setback line on all applicable drawings, per comment #42. Please also revise the front maximum setback note on Sheet C0.0 per comment #42. 15. [32.5.2 (a)] The setback lines shown on Sheets C4.0 through C4.2 do not correspond with the setbacks that apply to the R-15 Zoning District. For example, there is a "20' setback" line shown around the eastern, southern, and western project boundaries. However, there is no minimum or maximum setback of 20' for infill developments in the R-15 Zoning District, per Section 4.19. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. Please revise the front setback line on all applicable drawings, per comment #42. 16. [32.5.2 (b)] Please provide a table indicating the quantity of units proposed within each building. The table should include columns indicating how many units measuring less than 500 sq. ft., 1 bedroom, and 2 or more bedrooms are proposed within each building. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per applicant response letter, a table with the unit count will be provided with the final site plan. a. The total unit count by bedrooms should be specified so that staff can verify that adequate parking spaces are provided in accordance with the multifamily dwelling units parking requirements specified in Section 4.12.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per applicant response letter, a table with the unit count will be provided with the final site plan. Staff will verify that the parking provided complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements at that time. 17. [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the gross residential density proposed. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2 (d)] Please show the locations of all Managed and Preserved steep slopes across all applicable drawings. a. Add a legend to each drawing where these features are visible and label each feature. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. No Managed or Preserved Steen Slopes are drawn on the plans. Per applicant response letter, any Managed or Preserved Steep Slopes within the development will be delineated on the final site plan prior to approval. 19. [32.5.2 (b)] Please indicate whether any loading spaces are proposed within the development. Loading spaces must meet the design standards specified in Section 18-4.12.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 20. [32.5.2 (b)] In accordance with Section 18-4.12.13 (e), please show the dimensions for the dumpster pad and associated improvements on Sheet C4.2. Rev. 1: Per applicant response, dumpster pad and enclosure details will be provided as cut -sheets on the final site plan. 21. [4.12.19 and 32.7.9.7 (a)(3)] Please provide a profile view detail with dimensions and materials of the trash compactor enclosure to verify compliance with the screening requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Please note that fences or other constructed screening measures must be a minimum of six feet (6') in height, as specified in 32.7.9.7 (e). Rev. 1: Per applicant response, compacter and enclosure details will be provided as cut -sheets on the final site plan. 22. 132.5.2 (j)] Please label all existing sewer and drainage easements by type and include a size/width measurement. State the deed book and page for the recorded instrument number in each existing easement label. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 23. [32.5.2 (k)] Please label all proposed sewer and drainage easements by type and include a size/width measurement. State the deed book and page for the recorded instrument number in each existing easement label. Rev. 1: Per applicant response, the final site plan will show all proposed easements associated with this proiect. See comments #23a and #23b below for process & timing for submittal, review and approval of easement plat application (this is separate from the final site plan application). See also information regarding revisions to final site plan that are required prior to final site plan approval. a. An easement plat application must be submitted, reviewed, approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval for all proposed easements. b. Once the easement plat is recorded, the final site plan must be revised to show the recorded instrument number for the easement plat (deed book and page number). The newly created easements will need to be labeled with the instrument number, easement type, width dimensions, and whether it is public or private. 24. [32.5.2 (n)] ADA compliant striping must be provided across all parking lot drive aisles where handicap accessible parking spaces are provided on opposite sides of the travelway. For example, the handicap spaces in front of the clubhouse should be connected by striping. 25. [32.5.2 (n) and 32.7.2.31 Per Engineering Division comments, a sidewalk and staircase should be installed to provide access to buildings 8 and 9 from the four (4) parking spaces south of the structures. Additionally, a sidewalk and staircase should be installed to provide access from the four (4) parking spaces between buildings 4 and 5 to the recreation area to the south. Rev. 1: Site layout has changed. Per applicant response. sidewalks and stairwells will be added to the final site elan as recommended by the Engineering Division. Locations of these improvements, if necessarv. will be determined during review of the final site plan. 26. [32.7.2.31 Add a sidewalk along the south/west side of the travelway between building 7 and building 8. ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks should be installed at the north mouth of the travelway to connect the sidewalks. Rev. 1: Comment not fullv addressed. Crosswalk strinini! must be added between the sidewalk at the south end of the parking area near Building 5. See Engineering comments for additional details regarding installation of CG-12 ramps where sidewalks terminate at drive aisles. 27. [32.5.2 (n)] On Sheet C4.1, there is a row of parking on the north side of the travel way between buildings 1 and 2 that states 18 parking spaces are provided. However, there are only 17 spaces in this area. Please revise the label. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 28. 132.5.2 (n)] Please clarify what the "3/4 Split" means in each building label on Sheets C4.0-C4.2. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 29. [32.5.2 (r)] Provide a Legend on each drawing showing all symbols and abbreviations visible. 30. [32.5.2 (n)] Please state the height of all proposed fences and retaining walls in the labels used on the drawings. Profile view details of all proposed fences, retaining walls, and constructed screening measures will be required with the final site plan. Each will need to show the types of materials used and dimensions. Rev. 1: Per applicant response, details of all proposed fences, retaining walls, railings, etc. will be provided on the final site plan. a. See Engineering Division and Inspections Division comments for additional details on retaining wall requirements. Rev. 1: Per applicant response, details of all proposed fences, retaining walls, railings, etc. will be provided on the final site plan. 31. [4.7 (d)] All proposed open space areas that will be privately owned shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision plat or site plan. Rev. 1: Per applicant response, the instrument for privately owned open space will be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to final site plan approval. a. Prior to final site plan approval, an easement or maintenance agreement must be resubmitted, reviewed, and approved by the County that demonstrates that private open space areas (including the tree save areas that will be used to earn the density bonus, and recreational open space areas) meet this requirement for maintenance and preservation. Rev. 1: Per response noted above, the instrument ensuring maintenance of privately owned open space will be submitted during review of the final site plan. This can be accomplished through an subdivision easement application. 32. [32.5.2 (e)] Please provide more details about the existing landscape features as described in Section 18- 32.7.9.4(c). a. The Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be signed by the owners and provided as an exhibit on major amendment prior to approval. This is required to verify that the proposed 10% density bonus for maintenance of existing vegetation is possible. See Section 18.4.1 for additional details. Rev. 1: Comment stands. The checklist will need to be provided as an exhibit on the final site plan and signed by the owners. b. [32.7.9.4 (c)] In both tree save areas, please identify the locations of all existing vegetation types that will be preserved. Use callout to identify the species of each vegetation type. Add a table to the Landscape Plans that identify the quantities, caliper, and height of all vegetation within these areas that will be saved to earn the density bonus. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The landscape plan identifies existing wooded areas to be preserved, but specific information on types of vegetation, including species, quantity, caliper, height are not noted. c. The grading drawings and landscape plans should show the tree and vegetation protection measures that will be installed to protect existing vegetation from disturbance. The limits of disturbance should be labeled on both drawings and symbology should be added for the fences or other protection measures that will be installed. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. The grading drawings do not identify any tree protection measures being installed around the existing wooded areas that will be preserved. Please show this information on the final site plan. 33. [32.7.9.61 The landscape plans do not include a calculation for the minimum 5% landscaping required within the parking area. Based on the 1.66 acres of parking area on site, a minimum of 3,616 sq. ft. of canopy coverage is required within the parking area. Please add this calculation to Sheets L 1.0-L2.0 and provide a table identifying the trees and shrubs proposed that will meet this requirement. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. On the Interior Parking Lot Reauirements table on Sheet L2.0, the table says that 10.774 so. ft. of canopy coverage is being provided. However, the 31 total trees proposed in the parking area add up to 9,539 sq. ft. based on the Plant Schedule canopy coverage column. Please clarify. a. [32.7.9.6 (c)] Provide a table stating the species, quantity, size at time of installation (caliper and height) of all proposed vegetation that will be used to meet the 5% interior landscaping canopy requirement. All vegetation proposed to be installed should be from species listed on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. b. The table should state the canopy coverage per single item in each individual vegetation type, and a column stating the total canopy coverage based on the overall quantity of each vegetation type. Please consult the Plant Canopy Calculations table for this information. 34. [32.7.9.71 The "Parking Screening Requirements" table on Sheet L1.0 indicates that no parking screening is being provided. However, the parking spaces on the east and south sides of the development must be screened in accordance with the Ordinance because properties to the east/south are zoned residential and rural areas. The landscape plans will need to be revised so that screening is provided. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. A small double row of staggered PIN TAE trees are shown on the southwest corner of the site that appears to be an attempt to screen parking in front of Building 9. However, a. [32.7.9.7 (c)] Add a table to the landscape plans stating the species, quantity, size at time of installation (caliper and height) of all proposed vegetation that will be used to meet the parking lot screening requirement. All vegetation proposed to be installed should be from species listed on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List. i. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum four (4) feet in height when planted. Shrubs shall be a minimum eighteen (18) inches in height when planted. All trees to be planted shall meet the specifications of the American Association of Nurserymen. b. The table should state the canopy coverage per single item in each individual vegetation type, and a column stating the total canopy coverage based on the overall quantity of each vegetation type. Please consult the Plant Canopy Calculations table for this information. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Additional parking screening is needed, see comment below. Update the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 once the additional landscaping is added. c. [32.7.9.7 (d)] On the south side, a planting strip measuring a minimum of 20' in depth must be provided between the parking areas and development boundary. This should be shown and labeled on Sheet L1.0. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The 20' wide planting row needs to extend for the full length of the southern project boundary in order to screen it from view of the residential and rural area zoned properties to the south. Please show these materials on the final site plan, and update the Plant Schedule on Sheet L2.0 as necessary. Both trees and shrubs should be provided in the double staggered row, not just offset trees. An additional row of double staggered trees and shrubs is needed along the eastern property boundary to screen the parking in front of Building 5. Please add this to the final site plan. 35. [32.7.9.81 The "Tree Canopy Calculations" table on Sheet L1.0 is incorrect, a minimum of 20% overall canopy must be provided, not 10%. Please revise. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. The overall canopy provided will change based on previous comments. Please update the calculations on Sheet L2.0 so that it reflects the total canopy coverage of all existing materials that will be retained, and all proposed landscaping. This includes parking screening, parking trees, shrubs, etc. a. An overall canopy calculation table should be provided stating the total amount of vegetation that will be installed and preserved to meet this requirement. This includes all new materials being installed in accordance with Sections 32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.6, and 32.7.9.7. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. The overall canopy provided will change based on previous comments. Please update the calculations on Sheet L2.0 so that it reflects the total canopy coverage of all existing materials that will be retained, and all proposed landscaping. This includes parking screening, parking trees, shrubs, etc. 36. [32.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Landscape plans stating "All landscaping shall be installed by the first planting season following the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development." Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 37. [32.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Landscape plans stating "All landscaping and screening shall be maintained in a healthy condition by the current owner or a property owners' association, and replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall comply with the final site plan approved landscape plan." Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 38. [32.7.8 and 4.171 The initial site plan does not include a lighting plan in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please include a lighting plan on the next submittal and address the following: Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per applicant response letter, a full lighting plan complying with the Zoning ordinance requirements will be provided with the final site plan submittal. a. [4.17.4] Please provide a luminaire schedule stating the quantity of each outdoor luminaire proposed, the model number, the fixture type, wattage emission, etc. b. [4.17.4 (a)] Please provide documentation from the manufacturer that all proposed outdoor luminaries exceeding 3,000 lumens are full -cutoff fixtures. c. Please state the pole height of all outdoor luminaires. d. [4.17.4 (b)] Please show foot-candle measurements within the development and along all existing and proposed street right of ways and property boundaries. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half ('/2) foot candle. e. Please add a note to the lighting plan which states "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one-half footcandle." 39. [32.6.2 (d) and Chapter 141 Please submit an easement plat and application to the County that shows all new easements proposed by the site plan. This includes all new drainage, stormwater, public access easements, etc. The easement plat must be reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to approval of the final site plan. Rev. 1: Per applicant. response. an easement blat application will be submitted to the Countv for review. anuroval. and recordation prior to final site plan approval. 40. [General Comment] Prior to final site plan approval, a WPO plan must be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Engineering Division. Please see Engineering comments below for additional information. Rev. 1: Per applicant response, a WPO application will be submitted for review and approval prior to final site plan approval. 41. [General Comment] Please provide more information on how the proposed affordable housing units will comply with the requirements outlined in Section 18.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Chief of Housing will need to verify that the plans comply with the requirements prior to final site plan approval. See additional Code sections below: a. [18.4.3 (b)] The initial sale price for sale units or the rental rate for a period of at least ten (10) years for rental units shall qualify as affordable housing under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmers Home Administration or Housing and Urban Development housing choice voucher program. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, comment no longer applicable. The project does not propose any affordable units as part of a bonus density cluster development. b. [18.4.3 (c)] If rental units, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle restricting the rental rates of the affordable units for a period of at least ten (10) years or until the units are sold as affordable units, whichever comes first. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, comment no longer applicable. The project does not propose any affordable units as part of a bonus density cluster development. c. 118.4.3 (i)] The occupancy of the affordable units shall be restricted to those households with incomes at or below eighty (80) percent of the area median income for for -sale units and at or below sixty (60) percent of the area median income for rental units. The chief of housing or his designee must approve all purchasers of for -sale units based on household income. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a building providing affordable rental units, the developer shall enter into a rental rate agreement with the county, approved by the county attorney, that delineates the terms and conditions pertaining to rental rates, occupancy and reporting during the minimum ten (10) year period. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, comment no longer applicable. The project does not propose any affordable units as part of a bonus density cluster development. 42. [18-4.19] The site layout has changed since the initial submittal. Building 5 on the east side of the development is the building that must meet the minimum and maximum front setbacks. Zoning and Planning staff have reviewed the new layout. See the language below from footnote #3 of Section 4.19 of the Zoning Ordinance for non-infill front setbacks: "The maximum front setback for a non-infill development shall be increased to the depth necessary to avoid existing utilities, significant existing vegetation steep slopes, perennial and intermittent streams, stream buffers, public spaces and public plazas shown as such on an approved site plan or subdivision plat, to satisfy a condition of a certificate of appropriateness, and in circumstances where there are multiple buildings on the same lot and prevailing development patterns. On any parcel with multiple main buildings, at least one main building shall meet the maximum setback. " Based on the parcel shape, location and site design, the maximum front setback for this site is 61' as shown for Building 5. Please revise the Cover Sheet where it lists maximum front setback to state "Front Maximum: 61' from eastern property boundary in accordance with the provisions specified in Section 4.19, footnote #3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance." 43. [General Comment] The Existing Conditions drawing identifies an "Existing 35' R/W per plat in DB 569, page 32" running across TMP 32-55 (Parcel A). Please provide more information on who owns this easement, and how it will be vacated in order to allow the site to be developed as proposed. If other property owners hold rights to this easement, they will need to be party to and sign an easement plat that vacates the 35' R/W. a. Upon review of other recorded plats for adjacent parcels, specifically TMP 32-57A which is not part of this development proposal, it appears that the labeling used in DB 569, page 32 may be incorrect. A dirt road does lie within the area identified as "35' R/W." However, staff cannot verify if this was ever actually recorded as a road right-of-way, or if it is simply an access road that was surveyed and shown on plats that has not actual easement or right of way deed/agreement tied to it. Refer to the instruments in DB 632, pages 32-35 and DB 1715, pages 716-719 for additional clarity on this comment. DB 1715, 716-719 in particular notes it as "Dirt road being used for access by TMP 32-55" but makes no mention of a recorded instrument that establishes an actual right-of-way over the dirt road. 44. [General Comment] The location of the on -site cemetery has been revised and shown on these plans. The Code of Virginia, specifically § 57-27.1, states that "owners of private property on which a cemetery or graves are located shall have a duty to allow ingress and egress to the cemetery or graves by i) family members or descendants... " Prior to final site plan approval, a private access easement must be provided into the development in order to allow access to the cemetery in accordance with the Code of Virginia. This can be done as part of the easement plat application referenced in previous comments. A deed of easement for access to the cemetery will need to be provided for review by the County Attorney. The deed will need to specifically mention the parties that are granted access to the cemetery in accordance with the Code of Virginia. Use the following link to access the Code of Virginia: LINK. Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blan ig llegalbemarle.org or 296- 5832 ext. 3432 for further information. Comments From Other Reviewers: Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — John Anderson, janderson2(abalbemarle.org — Requested Changes, see attached. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Andy Slack, aslack(&albemarle.org — See attached recommendation. Albemarle County Zoning Division Kevin McCollum, kmccollum(&albemarle.org — No objection. Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellinger@albemarle.org — No objection. Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Shawn Maddox, smaddoxgalbemarle.org — Requested changes, see attached. Albemarle County Service Authority — Richard Nelson, rnelson(&serviceauthority.org — Requested changes, see attached. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority — Victoria Fort, vfortgrivanna.org, 434-977-2970, ext. 205 — See recommendation. Virginia Department of Transportation Willis Bedsaul, willis.bedsaulgvdot.vir ig nia.gov —Requested changes, see attached. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Site Plan Review Project title: Berkmar Drive Apartments — Initial Site Plan Project file number: SDP201900001 Plan preparer: Mitch Bowser, P.E., Timmons Group [mitchell.bowser(a)timmons.com] 1001 Boulders Pkwy, Suite 300, Richmond, VA 223225 Owner or rep.: Uptown Village LLC / P.O. Box 5548, Charlottesville, VA 22905 Plan received date: 14 Jan 2019 (Rev. 1) 1 Apr 2019 Date of comments: 14 Feb 2019 (Rev. 1) 7 May 2019 Plan Coordinator: Cameron Langille Reviewer: John Anderson SDP201900001— For ISP approval (Engineering defers to Planning): 1. Boundaries of TMP #32-53 do not match current real estate records. Sheet C2.0 indicates parcel boundary to be abandoned by separate instrument, but this poses several issues: (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `A proposed boundary line adjustment remedying this issue will be submitted and recorded prior to final site plan approval.' a. If ISP were approved and boundary is not abandoned with new boundaries created to match ISP, there are design implications, beginning with site plan approval for an unrecorded parcel. b. Similar to a., Sheet 0.0 bonus density relies on boundary adjustment that creates a parcel of 17.40 Ac., which does not exist at present. Engineering recommends against bonus density that reflects 17.40 Ac. unless recorded boundaries match overall acreage shown on C0.0 and C2.0. 2. Recommend include reference to SDP201900001 in plan title, if ISP resubmittal is required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `The ref. SDP# has been added to the top right corner of each plan sheet.' 3. Provide inlet /storm pipes to capture and convey right turn lane storm runoff from Berkmar Drive. Ref. Inset I-2, sheet C6.2. Show with ISP for recommendation of ISP approval. Note: detention may be required. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: See item 24, below. 4. Engineering cannot check stormwater quality and quantity values intended to show on -site SWM facilities and offsite nutrient credit purchase ensure compliance with VSMP requirements, since calculations are not provided. Energy balance equation is required at each discharge point, since release is to multiple natural undefined channels. Provide preliminary design data to support quality /quantity values shown on C6.0 (including VaRRM .xls), or disclaimer Note that reads: "SWM values presented with initial site plan are estimates. Albemarle County has not reviewed or approved estimates." (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Final SWM management design, calculations, details, and supporting information will be provided prior to final site plan approval.' 5. C6.0: DEQ-approved hydrodynamic separators: StormTrap® and SciClone® systems require frequent first - year inspection, with periodic inspection, thereafter, but inspection requires safe access. Berkmar HOA must contract for vendor maintenance and inspection services, which will be impeded if traffic is a threat, or if parked cars prevent access. Any access to hydrodynamic separators must be located outside internal Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 6 travelways and parking drive aisles. If located in a parking space, that space is forfeit and must be striped and signed `No parking' to ensure access is possible. Alternatively, locate hydrodynamic separator manways outside paved surfaces, > 4-ft. beyond nearest curbing. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Reference docs: https://www.swbmp.vwrrc.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/HD Application_SiteSaver Item-9.pdf (StormTrap), and https://www.swbmp.vwrrc.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/HD Application SciClone_Item-8.pdf (SciClone). For Final Site Plan (FSP) approval: Nearly all comments, below (6.-49.) persist. Comment response /typical response: `[ITEM] will be submitted for approval prior to final site plan approval.' For this reason, unless specifically addressed with no.follow-up required, items below need to be addressed for final site plan (FSP) approval. Note: Certain items partially addressed require follow-up. C2.0 6. Investigate Ex. SWM basin shown near north boundary of Parcel C. SWM facilities are rarely eliminated without design of a replacement system. Provide VSMP/WPO plan that considers impact to any existing SWM facilities. Address loss of stormwater quantity or quality control due to final site plan design, if any. (Rev. 1) `Will be provided prior to...' 7. Investigate suspected cemetery at southwest corner of Parcel C. Take necessary precautions and measures required by law to not disturb and to preserve human remains, or burial caskets. Avoid impacts via design. Properly identify, address, and mitigate any permissible encroachment upon suspected burial grounds. (Rev. 1) `Will be provided ...prior to...' 8. Obtain all necessary VDOT permits to work within public right-of-way, Berkmar Drive, SR 1403. (Rev. 1) `Will be applied for...' 9. Obtain and furnish copy of wetland delineation coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Provide copy or evidence of permit coordination with the USACE for impacts to waters of the U.S., or wetlands, consistent with federal and state law. (Rev. 1) `Will be obtained prior to...' 10. Proposed boundaries should be labeled as such, distinct from existing property boundaries. Boundaries shown as existing must match recorded land records /plats. Ref. County GIS. (Rev. 1) `Proposed and existing boundaries will be further delineated as the future boundary line adjustment plat is recorded.' 11. Clarify and include with FSP text of Note #8 and Exception #10 shown with cemetery label. (Rev. 1) `Will be provided...' 12. Design may not rely on County GIS, or LiDAR data. Design must be based on field survey data points obtained within the past 12-months, or visually field -verified by the designer within the last year. Ref. existing conditions plan view information, item #2, Final Site Plan checklist (attached). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 13. C4.0: 3.5 Ac. tree save area is unrealistic. At no point does `tree save area' lie > 10' from retaining walls. At certain points, nearest approach is 3' or 4'. Engineering advises Planning against accepting 3.50 Ac. `tree save area' as realistic estimate of area of trees that will survive construction of high retaining walls. Also `tree save area' must exclude ACSA water/sanitary sewer corridor near NE edge of development. Trees will be cleared from this utility easement. Engineering recommends a 20' minimum offset for any `tree save area' adjacent to any retaining wall. (Rev. 1) NA -Applicant response: `The proposed "Tree Save Area" is no longer proposed as the project no longer proposes a unit density bonus.' C4.0: 14. Ensure parking /sidewalk design conforms to a permissible zoning ordinance option (Ref pg. 17, ACDSM; image belo;A). Bumper blocks are required for all parking spaces 18' in length adjacent to 5' w sidewalks. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide additional width labels wherever width ambiguous. 15. Provide retaining wall design for all retaining walls. Ref. Final site plan checklist. (Rev. 1) `Will be provided...' 16. Provide handrail for all retaining walls > 4-ft. high. Provide detail (VDOT HR-1). (Rev. 1) `Handrails will be provided where necessary for retaining walls prior to...' Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 6 C4.1 17. Engineering recommends walk and stairs from 4 parking spaces between buildings 8 and 9 to provide access (down) to apparent front entrance of these buildings. Similarly, recommend walk and stairs from 4 parking spaces between buildings 4 and 5 to provide access (up) to the recreational area in front of these buildings. (Rev. 1) `Staircases will be added and detailed where necessary prior to...' 18. Engineering recommends sidewalk adjacent to 4-space parking areas between buildings 8 and 9, and between building 8 and the travelway that connects outer and inner loop parking aisles. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Engineering recommends 6' sidewalk adjacent to 55 parking spaces north of buildings 3 and 4. Proposed landscape bench may be used for 6' sidewalk at this location; or, given 26' drive aisle width at this location, Engineering requests 30" (2.5' w) pavement pedestrian aisle (solid borders w/ diagonal pattern) to run the full length of these 55 spaces, located at drive aisle edge of 18' deep parking spaces. This pavement -based pedestrian aisle (seen at shopping centers) signals typical pedestrian use of portions of parking lot where design cannot provide safe convenience of a dedicated walkway. Likewise, identical recommendation /request for pavement markings for 48 parking spaces west of buildings 9, 10. 19. Stop signs must be shown located prior to CG-12 ramps and pedestrian crosswalks. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide stop sign at `Y' intersection (Maintenance right, residence bldgs. ahead). 20. Revise CG-12 in plan view to match Detectable Warning Surface detail, VDOT sheet 3, plan sheet C4.3, for ramps aligned perpendicular with, not diagonally to, two receiving ramps. Please call if any questions. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: With FSP, provide CG-12 ramps at every crosswalk accessed via sidewalk. Ensure graphic images of CG-12 detectable surface matches VDOT CG-12 detail, rev. 07/15. 21. Ensure internal travelways, parking areas, islands, loading spaces, grades, etc. meet site plan requirements listed at Ch. 18-4. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: With FSP, label all curb Aravelway radii. 22. Provide VDOT GR-2 guardrail between 61 parking spaces and proposed retaining wall along north edge of development, beginning northwest of building 3, ending just west of building 6, at bend in retaining wall. (Rev. 1) NA. Applicant response: `Retaining wall in this area has been removed.' C4.2 23. Inset I-2, right turn lane section: Label surface asphalt, base asphalt, and base stone thickness. Provide pavement Design (Dr, Dp). (Rev. 1) `Final pavement design will be provided prior to...' 24. Design and show storm drain inlet for right turn lane off Berkmar Drive. Show storm pipe. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Existing topography slopes eastward across Berkmar Drive Ext. Include plan detail that traces runoff from proposed pipe outfall at development entrance to Berkmar Drive crossing (existing storm system). Evaluate existing storm system constructed with Berkmar Drive project, for proposed additional development flow: Qio, capacity; Qa, velocity /erosion. 25. Provide stop or yield traffic sign at internal travelway intersection near north end, bldg. 12. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Ref. item 19, above. 26. Provide VDOT GR-2 guardrail between 43 parking spaces and proposed retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn, review error. Proposed grade slopes up at this location. 27. Provide complete retaining wall design for Engineering review. Reference retaining wall plan checklist (attached). (Rev. 1) `Final design and details for proposed retaining walls will be provided prior to...' 28. C4.3: Provide pavement design for heavy duty pavement section (travelways /parking area aisles). Provide ADT at full build -out. (ADT may vary for different loop sections of internal travelways.) (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Pavement designs have been provided based on site geotechnical analysis and report.' Engineering requests Dp, Dr, based on ADT, site specific geotechnical data. Use Eq. found at 2018 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivisions and Secondary Roads in Virginia. 29. C5.0: Engineering recommends against water main /sanitary sewer pipes passing beneath retaining wall; recommends, instead, skirting the wall entirely by routing distribution and collection around the east end of the wall. Engineering recommends steel carrier pipes and concrete lintels for water and sewer distribution or collection mains that may pass beneath (or through) any retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Comment persists. Applicant response: `Any utility crossings under proposed retaining wall will include protective casing for the proposed pipes. Final design and details will be provided prior to FSP approval.' Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 6 C6.0: 30. Qio values may be relevant, but Qi_year peak flow is most relevant. Design must meet state stormwater quantity requirements via energy balance equation based on Qj,,ea . (Rev. 1) `Full SWM analysis for Q10 and Q1 flows will be provided prior to...' 31. Offsite grading easements are required. Submit easement plat application. Provide copy of recorded offsite easement deed/s. (Rev. 1) `All required easements will be proposed and recorded prior to...' 32. Provide complete drainage design. Ref. Albemarle County Drainage Plan checklist (attached). Provide VDOT LD-204, LD-229, LD-268, LD-269 design tables. All appear relevant. Use VDOT table format. (Rev. 1) `Complete drainage design will be provided prior to...' 33. Provide contour labels for existing contours, especially south, west, and north of proposed development. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide additional ex. terrain contour labels for areas west. 34. Ensure FSP reflects subgrade dimensions of hydrodynamic separators. StormTrap systems are far larger than a std. VDOT MH. Plan view final site plan sheets should reflect true, not approximate or schematic dimensions. (Rev. 1) `Full details/profiles/dimensions of proposed hydrodynamic separators will be provided prior to...' 35. ISP proposes large volume subgrade SWM facility detention chambers with isolation chambers. Should any of the three proposed large volume systems fail, there is no backup, or bypass. Engineering requests Applicant submit long-term performance reliability data for proposed 30,OOOcf and 33,OOOcf systems. The largest integrated underground detention systems approved in Albemarle County are for non-residential sites better -positioned to deal with system replacement expense (Fifth Street Station; Stonefield). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `The proposed SWM strategy for the site has been revised to replace all underground detention facility with one pond to serve the entire site. Full design of the pond will be provided prior to final site plan approval.' 36. Engineering encourages Applicant to split 30,000 and 33,OOOcf systems, to design, instead, independent underground detention chambers that provide equivalent combined storm runoff control. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, see item 35, above. 37. Revise 33,OOOcf detention system discharge pipe location. Proposed location through retaining wall is disallowed, per Engineering Division policy. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, see item 35, above. 38. All detention system discharge outfalls must be to a defined channel. Propose grading to define a channel, if none exists. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, see item 35, above. As follow-up: Provide storm conveyance design to collect and convey storm runoff from travelway surface at inter -parcel connection to a defined stream channel. Design must be appropriate to proposed slopes, consistent with VDOT Drainage Manual design requirements. 39. Evaluate new drainage channels for capacity, and erosion. Provide soil stabilization blanket, where needed. (Rev. 1) `Analysis of all drainage channels will be provided prior to final site plan approval.' 40. Provide high -flow bypass for all hydrodynamic separators and high -flow bypass for all detention systems for events less frequent that the 10-yr, for rainfall intensity > 5.7" in a 24-hr period. Ensure bypass discharge does not cause flooding of travelways. (Rev. 1) `Full details/profiles/dimensions of proposed hydrodynamic separators will be provided prior to...' 41. C6.1: Revise matchline sheet 6.1 label to read 6.2. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. C6.2: 42. For proposed HDPE pipe, ensure pipe is rated adequate for depth of installation. (Rev. 1) Addressed. `Proposed HDPE pipe has been replaced with RCP.' 43. Prepare plat showing SWM facility maintenance and access easements. Show easements. (Rev. 1) `A plat for all SWM easements will be submitted and recorded prior to...' 44. Prepare plat showing private drainage easements for SWM facility discharge pipes. Show easements. (Rev. 1) `A plat for all SWM easements will be submitted and recorded prior to...' 45. Prepare plat showing public drainage easement for site access storm conveyance system elements along Berkmar Drive, or within VDOT right-of-way. Show public drainage easements. (Rev. 1) `A plat for all proposed drainage easements will be shown on the FSP, will be submitted and recorded prior to...' Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 6 46. Ref. ACDSM image, pg. 15, when designing easement width: EASEMENT WIDTH:➢IAMETER* V • 2IH-5'I*10' f20' JQ.V.Y EASEMENT WIDTH 10.-0" EQUIPMENT I I ➢L METER I 1' 0 i a' STORNMATER PIPE (Rev. 1) `Easements will be drafted to conform with ACDSM image, pg. 15.' 47. Sheet scale may be inaccurate; please confirm accurate. (Rev. 1) `Scales to be verified and corrected if necessary.' 48. L1.0: Use hatching or other symbol to indicate areas of proposed grade steeper than 3:1 and provide note with reference to permanent landscape vegetation hardier than grass. Ref. ACDSM, pg. 22, Sec. 8.A.2. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Noted. There are no areas of proposed grade steeper than 3: 1.' While generally accurate, check proposed grades at: (west of) building 6; inter -parcel travelway connection; north of 55 parking spaces, N of buildings 3 and 4. 49. Notes: (Rev. 1) `A WPO Plan and VSMP Plan Amendment will be submitted for approval prior to FSP approval' a. An approved VSMP Plan Amendment is required prior to Final Site Plan approval; please submit WPO Plan at earliest convenience. Coordinate proposed nutrient credit purchase with Ana Kilmer, Albemarle County, once VSMP/WPO Plan is approved. b. Please consider attached Final Site Plan, Drainage, and Retaining Wall plan checklists as aids to design. Checklists guide review. New — for FSP Approval 50. C4.2, Inset I-1: Provide barricade, notes /details for VDOT-approved barricade at inter -parcel connection, once travelway constructed. 51. C5.0: Ref VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 14, Wet Pond, for any sanitary facility setback requirements. Adjust proposed sanitary line alignment or wet pond design /location, as needed. 52. C6.0: Revise sidewalk grade leading from parking lot to building 1 east entrance. Max. grade = 5%. Ref, Albemarle County Code, 18-32.7.2.3.b. ref. to VDOT Std. Ref Road Design Manual, Appx. B(1)-4-I. ref. to IIM-LD-55.16, sheet 3, 2' bullet (images, follow) Road Design Manual, B(1)-4-I (2) Sidewalks shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Sidewalks shall be designed in accordance with ADA requirements and VDOT's Location and Design Instructional Memoranda IIM-LD-55, Curb Ramps and Sidewalks, located at http://www.virginiadot.oEg/business/locdes/rd-ii-memoranda-i ndex.asp IIM-LD-55.16 (Eff. 6/19/18) Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 6 Where pedestrian access routes are contained within a street or highway right-of-way, the grade of pedestrian access routes shall not exceed the general grade established for the adjacent street or highway. Where pedestrian access routes are not contained within a street or highway right-of-way, the grade of pedestrian access routes shall be 5% maximum C6.1: 53. Review proposed drainage design. Provide inlets, spot elevations or realistic revised grading at low points near parking lot islands. Multiple points in proposed parking areas will trap runoff with no outlet under proposed design. Revised grading alone cannot address. Additional inlets /pipes are required to connect with proposed storm conveyance system. Avoid ponding. 54. Provide fixed impassable barrier to trespass at proposed wet pond. Eventual review of design under WPO Plan application will restate request for signs warning of drowning hazard, and barrier to prevent trespass. 55. Recommend preliminary volume design evaluation of wet pond to ensure available space is adequate. 56. Recommend consider watershed size /land cover type proposed to drain to wet pond (% impervious, acreage), and whether design criteria works. From VA DEQ Stormwater Design Specification No. 14,.55: Contributing Drainage Area. A contributing drainage area of 10 to 25 acres is typically recommended for wet ponds to maintain constant water elevations. Wet ponds can still function with drainage areas less than 10 acres, but designers should be aware that these "pocket" ponds will be prone to clogging, experience fluctuating water levels, and generate more nuisance conditions. A water balance should be calculated to assess whether the wet pond will draw down by more than 2 feet after a 30-day summer drought (see equations in Section 6.2). 57. C6.2, Inset I-1: Label structure headwalls. 58. Note: Additional comments likely with FSP. Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069 SDP201900001 Berkmar Drive Apartments ISP 050719rev 1 Review Comments for SDP201900001 Initial Site Plan Project Name: Berkmar Drive Apartments - Initial Date Completed: Monday, April 15. 2019 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Andrew Slack CDD E911 Requested Changes The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names to this office for approval as a private road name for this development_ Please contact this office directly with any questions or the three (3) proposed road names_ Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 0512T2019 Review Comments for SDP201900001 11nitial Site Plan Project Name: Berkmar Drive Apartments - Initial Date Completed: Monday, April 15, 2019 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Sys: Reviewer: Shawn Maddox _ FI Fire Rescue See Recommendations The FDC for each building must be shown on the plans and located within 100' of a hydrant_ This can be done on the final site plan submittal_ Thank you for addressing all other comments_ SNIVI Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 1 0512-T2019 Cameron Langille From: Richard Nelson <rnelson@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 2:46 PM To: Cameron Langille Subject: SDP201900001 Berkmar Drive Apartments - Initial Cameron, I recommend approval for SDP201900001 Berkmar Drive Apartments — Initial with the following conditions: Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review. RWSA sewer capacity will be required. Downstream sewer upgrade utility plan will need to be approved prior to final approval of site plan. Thanks, Richard Nelson Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (434) 977-4511 Cameron Langille From: Victoria Fort <vfort@rivanna.org> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 7:56 PM To: Cameron Langille Cc: Richard Nelson; Dyon Vega Subject: SDP2019-01 Berkmar Drive Apartments Initial Site Plan - Resubmittal Cameron, RWSA has reviewed the initial site plan resubmittal for Berkmar Drive Apartments (SDP2019-01) as prepared by Timmons Group and dated 12/28/2018 with last revision dated 3/29/2019. RWSA does not have utilities in the vicinity of the Berkmar Drive Apartments; however, due to the proposed sewage flows from this development, a sanitary sewer flow capacity certification will be required from RWSA prior to final site plan approval. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (0): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295-1146 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Commissioner April 11, 2019 Cameron LangiIle County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP-2019-00001- Berkmar Drive Apartments - Revised Initial Site Plan Dear Mr. Langille: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, dated December 28, 2018, revised March 29, 2019, and offer the following comments. Please note the following comments still remain applicable from the previous submission from January 2019. Land Use 1. Please show mill and overlay on plans in accordance with WP-2 and show limits of mill and overlay to the adjacent travel Iane. Also please add the WP-2 detail to the plans. 2. Please provide an MOT plan in accordance with the Virginia Work Area Protection Manual. 3. Please provide sight distance lines and profile for proposed entrance onto Route I403 Berkmar Drive. 4. Please provide drainage calculations for proposed storm water structure tying into the Roadside ditch, pre and post construction for adequacy of discharge. Also please plot HGL on profile. 5. Please provide a drainage inlet on the northern side of the entrance. 6. Please provide trip generation data. 7. Please provide CG-12 Ramps at proposed entrance for crossing street. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other requirements. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-866. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Adam J. Moo e, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING