The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201800115 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2019-12-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project title: Project file number: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Date Received: Rev. 1 Received: Rev. 2 Received: Rev. 3 Received: Date of comments: Rev. 1 Comments: Rev. 2 Comments: Rev. 3 Comments: Ryan, Road and Drainage plan review Brookhill Block 3A (Ice Rink) SUB201800115 Bohler Engineering [ryauger@bohlereng.com] Riverbend Management [alan@riverbenddev.com] 29 Jun 2018 26 Oct 2018 04 Feb 2019 12 Nov 2019 27 Aug 2018 14 Dec 2018 01 April 2019 19 Dec 2019 We have reviewed the above referenced plans and have the following comments: Engineering (Emily Cox) 1. WPO Plan must be approved before road plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. WP0201800050 must be approved. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. 2. VDOT approval must be obtained before road plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still valid. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. 3. Revise title as discussed with the County Engineer. Contact Frank Pohl with any questions. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 4. Provide a sheet showing overall development with approved plan #'s (WPOs and SUBS, etc) to clarify areas covered with each plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Overall location map on sheet C-201 is sufficient. 5. Please clarify on the existing conditions sheet that Stella Lane is not built yet. Show approved plan number or note with explanation that it is not truly the existing condition as of the time of this plan. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 6. A SWM access road and existing residence road are shown. Please clarify how these will be affected. SWM says to be removed, so will there be new access provided? Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Rev. 3: Please provide a note regarding access during construction. If the driveway access needs to be maintained until the future road is built, please notate. If is does not need to remain open, comment considered addressed. 7. Sheet C-201 has a note regarding topography, however, dashed lines or arrows according to the not are not apparent on this sheet. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 8. Storm easements are not shown. A08 to A07 is just one example which needs an easement because Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 it is taking water from ROW to offsite. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Easement shown. Plat is necessary. Rev. 2: When will easement plat be submitted? Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 9. All velocities in storm pipes must be 15ft/s or lower. A02 to A01 is 17.55 ft/s. Please revise. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Rev. 3: Comment response said rip -rap was provided, however plan does not show it or a detail. Sheet C-801 shows this A-01 outfalling to another pipe A00, with no rip -rap at that outfall either. If this is all contained within a pipe, comment considered addressed. 10. Ensure correct HGL calculations are shown per VDOT LD-347. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Rim elevation explained. 11. Provide sight distance profile for intersection of Road 1B and Stella Lane. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 12. Rev. 1: [Sheet C-8031 Please reference the plan # in the note, do not just say separate cover. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Planning (Cameron Langille) 1. See attached letter dated 8/9/18. Rev. 1: Comments pending. Please do not revise and resubmit until you receive planning comments. Rev. 2: Comments pending. Please do not revise and resubmit until you receive planning comments Rev. 3: No objection. VDOT (Adam Moore) 1. See attached letter dated 08/16/18. Rev. 1: See attached letter dated 12/11/18. Rev. 2: See attached letter dated 3/13/19. Rev. 3: See comment letter dated 12/12/19. Fire Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. Rev. 1: No objections as of 11/29/18. ACSA (Jeremy Lynn Rev. 3: Alexander Morrison) 1. Still under review. ACSA communicating directly with applicant. Rev. 3: Still under review. GIS (Elisa Kiewra, Rev. 1 & 2 Andrew Walker Rev. 3: Brian Becker) 1. See attached comment letter dated 7/23/18. Rev. 1: No objections as of 11/27/18. Rev. 2: No objections. Rev. 3: No objection. ARB (Margaret Maliszewski) 1. The cemetery treatment plan required by Proffer 9 has not been received. Please provide the proposed treatment plan at this time. It is anticipated that the treatment plan contents will address, at a minimum: Installation of an appropriately styled fence around the marker, leaving sufficient space for maintenance; a routine maintenance plan for the marker, fence and immediate surroundings (lawn care, weeding, trash removal, careful removal of invasive vegetation, gentle cleaning of headstone, fence repairs, etc.), vandalism control; and identification of the party responsible for carrying out the work specified by the cemetery treatment plan. Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to discuss this review. 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 k' 01Y AL vit�r�A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Emily Cox (ecox cr,albemarle.org) From: Cameron Langille, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: August 9, 2018 First Revision: December 20, 2018 Second Revision: April 3, 2019 Third Revision: December 9, 2019 Subject: SUB201800115 Brookhill Development — Block 3A Road 113 - Road Plans Fax 434-972-4126 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. [14-303 (C)] Please show the boundary lines of all existing parcels within the development. The property lines on Sheet C-102 do not appear to show the correct parcel boundaries or parcel numbers. The correct TMP numbers and the most recently recorded instrument for each must be included in the property labels. a. Please revise the TMP numbers on Sheet C-101 and C-103 as necessary. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 2. [ZMA201500007] The proffers shown on Sheets C-104 and C-105 do not include pages 9 and 10 of the approved proffers. Please add these to the road plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. IZMA2015000071 On Sheet C-101 under "Code of Development," please add the ZMA number, ZMA201500007. Remove the June 27, 2016 revision date since this is not the approved revision. The approved COD revision is dated October 13, 2016. Rev. 1 Comment addressed. 4. ISP2015000251 On Sheet C-101 and C-103, please add a note stating the approved Special Use Permit, SP201500025 and the approval date of November 9, 2016 to allow grading activities in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 5. [ZMA201500007] Please remove the note at the bottom of C-106 stating the date of Application Plan, the approved application plan was not last revised in June 2016. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 6. IZMA2015000071 Please revise Note 1 on Sheet C-301 to state that Road 113 will be designed to the "Neighborhood Streets VDOT Public Roads" standard specified in Section 2.8 of the ZMA201500007 Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. [ZMA201500007] Please add a note to the road cross sections on Sheet C-901. State that Road 113 will be designed to the "Neighborhood Streets VDOT Public Roads" standard specified in Section 2.8 of the ZMA201500007 Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 8. [General Comment] Once E911 has approved a road name for Road 1B, please update the Cover Sheet by stating the road name in the title bar. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. Please update all other sheets with a Road 1 B label by adding the approved road name. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 9. [General Comment] Please revise the "Associated Plans" line on Sheet C-103 by stating the Block 3A final site plan application number, SDP201800049. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. [General Comment] The landscape schedule on Sheet C-701 states that 39 street trees are being provided, but only 37 are proposed within the Road 1B right of way. Please revise. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 11. [General Comment] Please revise Note 3 on Sheet C-701 to state that all landscaping within the Road I right of way shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a structure in Block 3A. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 12. [General Comment] Per Proffer #9A and Section 2.13 of the Code of Development for ZMA201500007, a historic marker shall be erected to commemorate the Brookhill manor house. The final site plan for Block 3A and the initial site plan for Block 8B show the marker in two different location within the Road 1B right of way. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The historic marker location shown on the Salamander Street road plan is inconsistent with the location shown on the approved initial site plan and preliminary_ plat for Block 8B (SDP201800054 and SUB201800119). Please respond to this comment confirming that the location of the historic marker as shown on the Salamander Street road plans (SUB201800115) is the true location for the sign installation and that the final site plans and plat for Block 8B will be revised accordingly to show the sign location. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. a. Please confirm where the historic marker will be installed along Road 1B. Show the marker on the Road 1 B road plans and include a construction detail inset on the construction details pages that demonstrates that the marker design follows VDHR standards for historic markers. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. An inset exhibit of the historic marker is not provided on the road plans. Please add a detail of the historic marker that complies with VDHR standards. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 13. [General Comment] Per Proffers #9A-C and Section 2.13 of the Code of Development, the owner needs go through the Section 106 Review process with VDHR for the Block 19 Brookhill manor house and the archaic woodland campsite near Block 16. The developer must also go through the 404 permit application process with VDHR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) to evaluate these historic features and develop any necessary treatment plans. Has this process already been initiated? Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The response letter does not indicate whether the 404 permit process has been initiated and whether VDHR and the USCOE will require treatment plans are necessary. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Simply showing a headstone location on existing conditions does not fulfill Proffer #9 requirements. The cemetery limits should be delineated on all applicable drawings. Furthermore, the response letter does not indicate whether the 404 permit process has been initiated and whether VDHR and the USCOE will require treatment plans are necessary. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. a. The realigned driveway to the manor house and possibly Road 1B grading appear to encroach into the area where the Dunn cemetery has been previously identified on surveys by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, INC and the ZMA201500007 Application Plan. The existing Dunn cemetery needs to be delineated on the road plans. Any impacts to the cemetery must be approved through a treatment plan approved by the Albemarle County Director of Community Development. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Sheet C-201 has a symbol for the Dunn cemetery location, but this does not delineate the extent of the true cemetery boundaries. Please prepare a metes and bounds survey of the cemetery location to verify that land disturbance and grading activities will not disturb the cemetery. As specified in Proffer #9B, a treatment plan may be needed for any activities that will encroach into the cemetery area, which must be approved by the Director of Community development, or his or her designee. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Sheet C- 201 has a symbol for the Dunn cemetery location, but this does not delineate the extent of the true cemetery boundaries. Please prepare a metes and bounds survey of the cemetery limits to verify that land disturbance and grading activities will not disturb the cemetery. As specified in Proffer #9B, a treatment plan may be needed for any activities that will encroach into the cemeteryarea, rea, which must be approved by the Director of Community development, or his or her designee. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 14. [General Comment] Staff would like to discuss this comment with the developer and engineers at a future Brookhill Coordination Team meeting. Please provide a narrative regarding the timeline for installation of the required 20' undisturbed and new landscaping buffer around the Brookhill manor house in Block 19. Please see Section 2.4.2 of the Code of Development for the manor house buffer requirements. Rev. 1: Comment response letter provided by applicant states "the timeline and methods for meeting this requirement will be coordinated with the County prior to final plan approval." In order to minimize issues with getting the buffer installed piece -meal as surrounding blocks develop, the entire buffer should be shown on SUB201800115. The applicant will need to coordinate with the en _ ig neer working on the Block 8B plans to ensure that proposed grading and impacts to vegetation and the buffer location is consistent between the plans for both blocks. Rev. 2: Road plans still only show the northern 20' buffer surrounding Block 19 and the response letter does not indicate the plan moving forward to ensure remaining three sides are planted (if necessary) or left undisturbed. Please verify the intent. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. Additionally, Sheet C-701 shows an area labeled as "20' undisturbed buffer" inside what appears to be the future parcel boundary for the manor house (Block 19). However, the existing tree line symbology appears to demonstrate that it is not currently vegetated in some areas. Per Section 2.4.2 (page 19) and 2.13 (page 28) of the Code of Development, new landscaping needs to be installed within the 20' buffer in order to comply with the COD. Please revise the Landscaping Plan on SUB201800115 to show the proposed vegetation that will be installed within the entire buffer and update the Planting Schedule as necessary. Rev. 2: Comment partially addressed. New vegetation has been added into the northern portion of the buffer where none exists. However, it appears that the existing treeline symbology has shifted north since the last road plan submittal. Staff has noticed that the 20-foot buffer on the north side of the historic Brookhill parcel is filled up to the right-of-way with existing trees, save for a 20' x 27' gap where the existing driveway enters. Previous plans showed the existing treeline farther south and the 20' buffer on the north side under- or unpopulated by vegetation. Staff has previously made the comment that: "The Code of Development requires a 20-foot landscape buffer around the historic Brookhill house property,. directly south of Block 3. A portion of the northern buffer area is depicted on the landscape plan C-701) but is unpopulated with trees and shrubbery. Please provide the required landscaping within the northern swath of the 20-foot landscape buffer around the historic Brookhill property with this site plan." Ensure that the existing treeline is accurate and provide documentation of its accuracy. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. a. The Road 1B application proposes to disturb land and some existing trees on/adjacent to Block 19. Some drawings delineate an "Existing 20' buffer" near Block 19. The buffer needs to be located on an area adjacent to the manor house in Block 19, per Section 2.4.2 and 2.13 of the COD. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. As mentioned in the previous comment, please coordinate with the engineer working on the Block 8B plans to ensure that proposed grading and impacts to vegetation and the buffer location is consistent between the plans for both blocks. It appears that the buffer location as shown on the road plans does not align perfectly as was shown on the approved initial site plan and preliminary plat for Block 8B (SDP201800054 and SUB201800119). Rev. 2: Pending response to first portion of this comment, please verif i intent is to ensure that Block 8B plans will not remove any of the existing vegetation within the western and southern buffer of Block 19. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.- b. Pending applicant response to this comment, the northern portion of the Block 19's 20' buffer may need to be shown as required landscaping on the Road 113 landscaping plan. The COD appears to allow the Block 19 buffer requirement to be satisfied in two general methods: i. Submit a subdivision plat to create the 3 +/- acre Block 19 parcel and include a private buffer easement inside the parcel on that plat. A landscaping typical section for the buffer will need to be provided as a plat detail specifying the types and quantities of vegetation to be planted in the buffer easement. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Staff believes that this option is the most appropriate option for installation of the Block 19 buffer. As mentioned in the previous two comments, please coordinate with the engineer working on the Block 8B plans to ensure that proposed grading and impacts to vegetation and the buffer location is consistent between the plans for both blocks. It appears that the buffer location as shown on the road plans does not align perfectly as was shown on the gpproved initial site plan and preliminary plat for Block 813 (SDP201800054 and SUB201800119). Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The applicant response letter does not explain which course of action will be taken. Please review previous comment and respond accordingly. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. New plantings shown in the buffer where existing vegetation does not currently exist. Please be aware that those landscaping items will be bonded as part of the road plan. A landscaping typical section for the buffer will need to be provided as a plat and/or road plan landscaping detail specifying the types and quantities of vegetation to be planted within the buffer easement in areas where existing vegetation does not exist. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Please rectify the following label errors on the landscape plan, C-701: the 30 IGC at the west end of the street are actually 37; the two labels of 40 IGC in the center of the street are each 41 IGC. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. New plantings shown in the buffer where existing vegetation does not currently exist. Please be aware that those landscaping items will be bonded as part of the road plan. ii. Install each side of the buffer as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or road plan for adjacent blocks. The landscaping plan for these applications will specify the types and quantities of vegetation to be planted in the buffer easement. Rev. 1: Comment no longer applicable, see previous responses to comments #14a and #14b. 15. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for Road 113, an Application For A 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 I 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 1B. Please feel free to contact staff to further discuss timing of the right-of- way dedication. Rev. 1: Applicant has acknowledged this comment and the required timing and process for dedication of the Salamander Street right-of-way. This comment will be continued on review letters for the Block 3A final site plan, SDP201800049 and that final site plan will not be approved until the right-of-way has been dedicated. New Comments First Revision: 16. [General Comment] The applicant has spoken with staff regarding VDOT comments about the proposed on -street parking conflicting with the required sight distance triangles along Salamander Street. As stated during previous reviews, Salamander Street must be designed in accordance with the "Neighborhood 4 Streets — VDOT Public Roads" cross-section specified in Section 2.8 of the ZMA201500007 Code of Development. In order to meet this standard, parking must be installed along one side of Salamander Street. a. Per VDOT comments on this matter, staff understands that on -street parking cannot be located within required sight distance triangles and therefore VDOT may not be allow on -street parking along the length of Salamander Street. However, the street can be designed so that less driveway aprons proposed. This would leave a larger segment of the street to feature on -street parking. Staff suggests removing the second driveway entrance from the road plans in order to comply with the COD. Rev. 2: Applicant has submitted an exhibit to Planning staff identifying sight distance conflicts with the proposed driveways along Salamander Street. Based on language from Section 2.8.1 of the Code of Development, "The design of streets will comply with the Virginia Department of Transportation Standard Street Requirements." However, the most recent sight distance exhibit sent to staff showed a possibility of p to five (5) on -street parking spaces on the north side of Salamander Street, immediately east of the Stella Lane/Salamander Street intersection. Please add two additional on -street spaces to the road plans and revise sheets C-301, C-302, C-303, and Sheets C-804, C-805, C-806, and the typical section on Sheet C-901 accordingly. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. b. If the developer does not agree to removing some of the proposed driveways, a Special Exception request will need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors in order to vary the street standard for Salamander Street. Rev. 2: See comment #2a. If the requested spaces can be added, at least one segment of the street will contain on -street parking in accordance with the COD cross-section and VDOT standard requirements and a variation will not be required for the segment of Salamander Street proposed with SUB201800115. Staff strongly advises the applicant to plan ahead for streets in future blocks, specificallypacing of driveway entrance locations. The ZMA intent was for each "Connector Road — Public VDOT Road" in Brookhill to have one side of on -street parking. Drivewaspacing should be planned accordingly so that continuous segments of on -street spaces will be possible along roads following this cross-section. This will be particularly important when designing blocks that have higher minimum requirements for parking spaces based on certain residential and non-residential uses in accordance with the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. Please contact Cameron Langille in the Planning Division by using blan ig llegalbemarle.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 December 12, 2019 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Emily Cox, P.E. Re: Brookhill 1 B Block 3A — Road Plans SUB-2018-00115 Review #4 Dear Ms. Cox: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Bohler Engineering, revised 07 November 2019, and offer the following comment: 1. Sheet C-301; Salamander street profile, please change CD-4's, to CD -I & CD-2's 9 Locations for CD-1 or CD-2's at: • Down grade end of cut to fill transitions. • Sag points in roadway grade. • Bridge approach slab. If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. BedsauI at 434-422-9866. 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. Moo , P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Emily Cox From: Alexander Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:21 PM To: Emily Cox Subject: RE: Message from ALBEMARLE COUNT (94349774511) CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Emily, Thank you. The plans are still under review. I have issued minor comments (a few weeks back) and am still waiting on a resubmittal. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434-981-5577 (F) 434-979-0698 OUT From: Emily Cox <ecox2@albemarle.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:06 PM To: Alexander Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org> Subject: FW: Message from ALBEMARLE COUNT (94349774511) Sorry I missed your call. You are correct, those were the road plans for Salamander Road. I was just getting my comment letter ready and I wanted to know if they had ACSA approval yet or not. Thanks! Emily Cox, PE Civil Engineer II (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3565 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1 www.albemarle.org From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnection@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 12:15 PM To: ecox2@cobm-cucxnpub.albemarle.or� Subject: Message from ALBEMARLE COUNT (94349774511)