HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000008 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2020-03-04IRG1-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 4, 2020
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
RE: SDP-2020-008-Brookhill- Blocks 9-11- Initial Site Plan
Mr. Collins:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments
for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Albemarle County Building Inspections (Building Official)
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board)
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Department of Transportation
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 to Final Site Plan approval. The Lead Reviewer will either
approve with conditions or deny the Initial Site Plan within 15 days of the Site Review Meeting.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Megan Nedostup
Principal Planner
Planning Services
Cc: Crockett Corporation
435 Park Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
r� 'AL
� IRGS?at�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Scott Collins
From:
Megan Nedostup- Principal Planner
Division:
Planning Services
Date:
March 2, 2020
Subject:
SDP2020-008 Brookhill BI 9-11- Initial Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items
have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based
on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle
County Code.]
Requirements:
1. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the zoning district and state the ZMA application numbers.
2. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet 3 provide the application number for Block 8B.
3. [32.5.2 (b)] On sheet 3 provide the totals for the proposed, so a running tally is
documented.
4. [32.5.2 (e)] Show the existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4(c).
5. [Application Plan; COD; Proffers] The greenway areas need to state that they will be
dedicated for public use per proffer #2. It is recommended that these dedications
happen with final subdivision plat. See below and attached.
6. [COD] Some of the units do not meet the relegated parking/garage setback from face of
building. Make sure all garages are setback at least 3 feet from the porch.
7. [COD Route 29 Buffer] Additional landscaping needs to be providing in areas where
there is grading within the 30 foot buffer per the COD.
8. [14-419; 32.7.9.7] Lots 5-8 are double frontage lots. A minimum of 20 buffer/landscape
area is required between the lots and the right of way to be planted in accordance with
32.7.9.7. This requirement is not being met, revise.
9. [ZMA Application Plan; Proffer 2; COD] There is a trail shown adjacent to Block 11
within the greenway area. This trail should be shown on the plan sheets. Has the trail
started or been established? In addition, there is reference to a trail connection to
Upland Park, this connection should be shown.
10. [Proffer 1] Polo Grounds construction for Phase 1 will need to begin prior to the V
building permit and complete prior to the 501" building permit/dwelling. Route 29
1
improvements must be substantially completed prior to the 50th building
permit/dwelling.
11. [32.5.2 (a); COD] Regarding Upland Park:
a. The COD has the following chart for Upland Park. The tot lot size is not
shown, measuring it out, it appears to be less than the amount
required.
b. The materials, dimensions, and size of the plaza should be noted.
c. The size of the whole park is not meeting what is required under the
COD- 60,000 sf.
d. A usable open recreation area is not provided.
e. See comment #11 for additional requirements under the code for this
area.
f. The overall open space in the chart on the cover sheet indicates less
open space provided then what is required.
Upland Park —
60,000 SF
Block 11
1. Outdoor plaza and meeting area
Civic Space #2
2 Tot lot playground area (8,000 sf min )
3. Open recreational area
4 Hard surface play court such as a
basketball court, tennis court, or sport
court
5. Minimum 5 spaces for parking
6 Trail connection to the Greenway trails
12. [4.16.1] Pedestrian and maintenance access to the proposed recreation facilities is not
adequate. The only way to access the facilities is by stairs, which does not accommodate
parents with strollers, small children, or those with accessibility limitations. It also does
not allow for emergencies, or the maintenance of these facilities. In addition, it appears
that the slope is more than 10%, which does not meet the requirement of the
ordinance.
13. [4.16.3.3; Proffer 213] Since the application proposed less than 40 units, section 4.16.3
will apply for the completion of the recreation for Upland Park.
4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when 50 percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy.
14. [COD page 11; 14-233; 14-234] Per the regulations the houses are required to primarily
face public streets or amenity areas. There are private streets proposed that will need to
be approved. Why are these private streets as opposed to public? A justification in
accordance with 14-234 will need to be submitted for review.
15. See attached direction from the Post Master regarding group mailboxes. Please
coordinate location with the Poster Master.
Please contact Megan Nedostup at the Department of Community Development 296-5832 ext.
3004 for further information.
2
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Megan Nedostup
From:
Emily Cox
Date:
28 Feb 2020
Subject:
Brookhill — Sections 9, 10 & I I - ISP (SDP202000009)
The initial site plan for Brookhill — Sections 9-11 has been reviewed by Engineering. The following
comments will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
2. Road Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
3. Ensure the accurate FEMA 100 year floodplain is shown. The ZMA appeared to show the
500 year. Also, Note I on Sheet 6 says no floodplain exists on site, however, a floodplain
is shown. Please clarify and correct.
4. Note that per the code of development, Page 23, the maximum retaining wall height is six
feet. Some of these are exactly 6 ft. If constructed over 6 ft, that will be a violation.
5. Preserved slopes can only be disturbed as shown on the ZMA. Retaining walls and
grading throughout this site are too close to preserved slopes. Please keep grading ideally
5 ft away from preserved slopes so that construction can actually occur without
disturbance. Lots 73-77 are one example.
6. Per 2.4.2, Buffers, in the code of development, buffers shall not be located within any
private lot. Part of the Route 29 buffer is shown on lots.
7. Please show all easements, such as forest & open space easement.
8. Retaining walls that cross private lots will need to be in easements and will need
maintenance agreements.
9. Storm profiles and calculations will be necessary. Please show (or provide note stating)
where roof drains will tie in to storm drains.
10. Please label, "proposed greenway", not 100 ft. stream buffer on all applicable sheets.
11. The cover sheet references "phasing". Please clarify how this plan would be phased and
how it would be feasible (with utilities, etc).
Review Comments for SDP202000008 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: Brookhill - Blks_ 9, 10, & 11 - Initial
Date Completed: Tuesday, March 03, 2020 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski CBBARB I See Recommendations
At its meeting on March 2, 2020, the ARB voted to forward the recommendations outlined int eh staff report to the Agent for the
Site Review Committee, as follows:
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended conditions of
initial plan approval:
o Prior to Initial Plan approval the following items shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the ARB
? The ARB recommends approval of the Initial Plan without conditions-
? Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval_
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
o Revise non-native plants to native species_
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
o Revise the plans to show adequate tree protection fencing_
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval_ The following items must. be addressed, in addition to
all items on the Final Site Plan Checklist-
1 _ The architecture of Blocks 10 and 11 does not require ARB review due to anticipated lack of visibility_
_ Provide dimensioned architectural elevations for review_ Provide material call-outs-
3- Eliminate Arctic white, woodland cream, cobblestone, sail cloth_ pearl grey, and light mist from the color options for lots 1
and 20 — 33_
4_ Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the site and architectural drawings_ 'Visibility of all mechanical equipment
from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated-'
5_ Provide in the site plan sufficient details to show that all proposed light fixtures meet the requirements of the lighting
ordinance-
6- Add the standard lighting note to the plan: 'Each oritdoor 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 away from 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_"
7_ Revise the buffer planting to include a greater variety of trees and shrubs, both deciduous and evergreen-
8- Add the standard plant health note to the plan_ 'All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach. and be
maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited_ Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support
the overall health of the plant-'
9_ Revise the plans to show adequate tree protection fencing.
10_ If colors will be selected by future owners add a note to the architectural dra}xings stating that the same color cannot be
used for adjacent units_
11 _ Add trees in all areas of the 30' buffer that are to be disturbed
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: Fo310412020
Review Comments for SDP202000008 Initial Site Plan
Project Name: Brookhill - Blks. 9, 10, & 11 - Initial
Date Completed: Monday, March 92, 2929 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson
LJ LCSA
RWSA sewer capacity certification will be required.
Submit 3 hard copies and 1 PDF for reviewATTN: Alex Morrison.
Dedication of ACSA utilities for Archer and Stella will be required prior to final site plan approval.
Requested Changes
Review Comments for SDP202000008 Initial Site Plan
Project Name: Brookhill - Blks. 9, 10, & 11 - Initial
Date Completed: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Brian Becker
ICD❑ E911 Requested Changes
Critical Issues: The road name "Foxworth" is not acceptable.
Comments: The road name "Foxworth" is not acceptable because "Fox" is used at the beginning of 12 other road names, far
exceeding the limit set in the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, Part 1.4.i (page 7 of the PDF):
"No proposed road name shall be approved which begins with a word that appears as the first word in five or more official
road names."
Please provide this office at least three alternative road names for review for each road, in case your first choices are not
acceptable. To see a list of existing road names, the Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory can be accessed at
the link in the Resources section below.
Resources: A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https:/Iwvvw.albemarle.org/upload/imagesIForms_Center/Departments/Geographic_Data_Services/Forms/Road_Naming_and
_Prope rty_Numbering_Ordinance_and_Manual.pdf. Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory:
http:/Iwvvw.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/.
Review Comments for SDP2020000O8 Initial Site Plan
Project Name: Brookhill - Blks. 9, 10, & 11 - Initial
Date Completed: Monday, February 24, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue Requested Changes
1. Hydrant spacing appears to exceed the 260' maximum distance from any point on street or road frontage to a hydrant.
2. Please clarify the average building height for this block. Aerial fire apparatus access requires 26' of unobstructed travel
width along one contiguous side of the structures for those buildings greater than 30' in height.
3. Please provide ISO needed fire flow calculations.
4. Please provide currently available fire flow from a recent test prior to final acceptance.
Megan Nedostup
From:
Dyon Vega <DVega@rivanna.org>
Sent:
Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:06 PM
To:
Megan Nedostup
Cc:
vfort@rivanna.org; Richard Nelson
Subject:
Brookhill Blocks 9,10, & 11 review
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.
Megan,
RWSA has reviewed the Brookhill- Blocks 9, 10 , & 11 Initial Site Plan dated January 15t" 2020 and has the following
comments:
General comments:
RWSA will require a sewer flow acceptance prior to final site plan approval.
The request will need to be sent to us by ACSA and will include the following:
• Estimated average daily dry weather sewage flow (ADDWF)
• Point of connection into RWSA system (which manhole)
• Number of units/square footage
• Estimated in-service date
Let me know if you have any questions.
Dyon Vega
Civil Engineer
RI
VANI
WATERII SEWERAUTH4RITY
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
(434) 977-2970, Ext. 170
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.rivanna.org
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMON WEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
February 25, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Megan Nedostup
Re: Brookhill Blocks 9, 10, & 1 I— ISP
SDP-2020-00008
Review #1
Dear Ms. Nedostup:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated 21
January 2020, and offer the following comments:
1. Provide projected ADT for Foxworth Lane.
2. Provide a turn lane warrant analysis for the Archer Avenue and Foxworth Lane
intersection, as well as a level of service analysis for the number of egress lanes on
Foxworth Lane.
3. As proposed, Archer Avenue could be accepted to intersection with Flora Lane.
4. Cul-De-Sac on north end of Koch Court should be shown per RDM pg. B(1)-24 with
minimum 45' radii. Locality in consultation with emergency services may specifically
request a variation in design requirements.
5. Sidewalks adjacent to curb shall be 8' in width to accommodate the opening of car doors.
RDM pg. B(1)-31
6. CG-9D should be shown per detail on the plan sheet with flared entrance configuration.
7. Radii to Flora Court should be minimum 25' radii from Flora Lane.
8. Waterlines should be centered in a lane.
9. Stormwater system should be shown perpendicular to road.
10. Spot elevations should be shown for adequate drainage on Koch Court
11. End of roads will need to be blocked with a minimum type III barricade and signage per
WAPM.
12. End of roads will need to be protected from erosion and show adequate drainage per
VESCH.
13. Please make sure all trees are removed from areas within 30' of intersections per RDM
pg. B(1)-44
14. Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the sight distance triangle will need to be
maintained in area between 2 and 7 feet above ground as a clear zone to preserve sight
lines and accommodate pedestrians.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
15. Approved road plans meeting SSAR, and in compliance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual are required prior to plat approval.
16. Pavement design for new subdivision streets shall be developed using the Pavement
Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia and must be based on in
place material at the time of construction.
17. Bike Iane striping should be 6" white on street section details.
18. Archer Avenue pedestrian crossings should be delineated in a manner that meets the
requirements of IIM-TE-384. http://www.viriziniadot.org/business/resources/IIM/TE-
384 Ped Xing Accommodations UnsignaIized L.ocs.ndf
19. Provide intersection site distance profiles for all public road intersections and entrances.
20. Note that the final site and subdivision plans 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.
Please provide a copy of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
1�� hlabull
Adam J. Moo e, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP202000008 11nitial Site Plan
Project Name: Brookhill - Blks_ 9, 10, & 11 - Initial
Date Completed: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Department1DivisionfAgency: Review sus:
Reviewer: Michael Bellinger _ _ CBB Inspecti I Requested Changes Nd
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit_ Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a
stamped engineered design also_ Walls require inspections as oritlined in the UBC_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by the
building department_
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Where the flood level rims of plumbing fixtures are below the elevation of the manhole cover of the next upstream manhole in the
public sewer, the fixtures shall be protected by a backwater valve installed in the building drain, branch of the building drain or
horizontal branch serving such fixtures_ Plumbing fixtures having flood level rims above the elevation of the manhole cover of the
next upstream manhole in the public sewer shall not discharge through a backwater valve_
Note to developer
Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, underground propane tanks may be prohibited_
Plan accordingly_
n
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: Fo310412020
MANAGER, OPERATIONS PROGRAM SUPPORT
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
10LINI TED STATES
— POSTAL SERVICE
Date: November 23,2015
Subject: New Developments
In April 2012, the USPS revised regulation to clarify options for delivery and to provide the USPS
greater autonomy in determining how deliveries are added to the Postal Service network. While
curbline and sidewalk delivery remain viable and approved modes of delivery, the USPS will
determine how and when to approve these modes of delivery consistent with existing Postal
Operations Manual (POM) regulation regarding in -growth and both establishment and extension of
delivery.
Each year, new delivery addresses are added to our city, rual and contract routes which has a major
impact to our delivery cost. To control costs, we need to ensure new residential deliveries are being
made via centralized delivery. We must adhere to the guidelines that govern establishment of new
delivery. The City/County authorities (Planning and Zoning) can not give approval of delivery service
The Postal Service cannot honor agreements that have been made between Planning and Zoning
and the developer.
At a minimum, the USPS will work with the builders and developers to determine what the best mode
of delivery is for the area prior to establishing or extending delivery service. However, as a national
agency, the USPS reserves the right to establish delivery in the most consistent and cost effective
means viable to meet our federal mandate of providing a free form of service that best meets the
need to establish and maintain a safe, reliable and efficient national Postal Service.
Please review the changes to the POM regarding Modes of Delivery and Delivery Equipment.
The changes are designed to enhance our ability to increase centralized and CBU delivery.
• Centralized and CBU delivery is now the default mode of delivery in business areas. Any
exceptions to centralized or CBU delivery mode in business areas must be approved by the District.
(631.2)
• For new residential delivery, CBU is now the default. Exceptions to permit curbline delivery must
be approved by the District. (631.32)
• New deliveries within an existing block with an established mode of delivery no longer assume the
existing mode of delivery. We can require a more efficient mode of delivery (sidewalk delivery, for
example). (631.41)
• While we do not control addresses for buildings, we do control the sequential ordering of addresses
within any centralized delivery equipment. (631.442)
• If more than one building in a complex has the same street address, the delivery equipment must
be grouped at a single location even if some of the units are in a different building. (631.452)
• Centralized delivery or CBU is the default option for delivery in mobile homes or trailer parks that
are permanent residences. Any exceptions to centralized or CBU delivery mode must be approved
by the District (631.462b)
• For dormitories and residence halls not directly affiliated with colleges, the Postal Service
determines the mode of delivery and can require the property owner to accept mail for all the
tenants. We will not distribute mail into centralized delivery equipment. (631.52)
• Delivery equipment must conform with the USPS standards for CBUs and high-rise delivery
equipment, USPS STD 4C wall mounted mail receptacles. Local offices do not have the authority to
approve any other centralized delivery equipment. (631.441)
-2-
• When obsolete delivery equipment is replaced in multi -unit buildings, it must be replaced with
equipment that meets current standards. (632.621)
The USPS standards include options for parcel lockers that we should ensure are provided.
There was also great consideration regarding safety of delivery, which also resulted in the
determination the the type of delivery warrented in your area.
Keith Smarte
Crozet Postmaster
1210 Crozet Virginia 22932
Work 434-823-9847
Cell 434-529-0241
Keith.A.Smarte(a usps.gov