HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000042 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-06-23Phone 434-296-5832
nF�.
x .r
f$(:L}
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 23, 2020
Subject: SDP202000042 Berkmar Overlook - Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above
once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those
that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated
based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the
Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Comments from the Initial Site Plan review that apply to the site plan:
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed.
[32.5.1, 32.5.2(a), 14-302(B)((8), & 4.19] Yards. Address the following:
b) Add a note specifying the maximum encroachment allowed into the setback for items such as
covered porches, balconies, decks, etc.
Final: Comment not vet fullv addressed. Revise the note provided to state "Covered
porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and the like architectural features may project not
more than four feet into any required yard provided that no such feature shall be located
closer than six feet from any lot line.
c) Revised the "side setbacks" shown on the proposed residential lots. The side setback is "0"
and not 5' as shown on the site plan/subdivision plat. Side setbacks should be represented as
zero. However, building separation labels, as shown in a few places, should be added
between each set of townhomes in order to specify that requirement. Please note, building
separation and building setbacks are not the same requirements and should not be treated as
such.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although notes have been added about the
building separation the following must be addressed. Corner lots appear to be treated as
having two sides. Corner lots have two fronts (4.6.2), not two sides. The following lots are
corner lots: 23, 24, 43 & 47. Address the following on those lots:
i. Add labels for the front minimum and maximum setbacks on the second front.
ii. Revised the setbacks so that the corner lots show both the minimum and maximum
setback on the other front.
6. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(i) & 14-302(A)(8)] Information regarding the proposed use. Provide
the acreages for each proposed residential lot and open space area. Address the following:
a) The acreage of the development lots should be included.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Revise the square feet of the development lots to match
the acreage of the same lots in the proposed subdivision plat.
7. [32.5.2(g), 14-302(A)(5) & 14-303(L)] Onsite sewage system setback lines. Revise the existing
conditions sheet to show any existing sewer lines, drainfields, or water lines. There are existing
buildings on this site, yet none of the water or sanitary sewer/septic infrastructure is shown other
than a well location. Included all existing information on the existing infrastructure.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the existing conditions sheet to show any existinc
easements on the lot, including any water and septic line easements. Address the following:
a) A water meter is shown within the property along Woodburn Road, but no easement is shown.
Show any existing easement and if any water easements are to be vacated the vacation of the
easement should be included in this plat.
b) No sanitary sewer lines or drainfields are shown on the property, but there are existing
buildings that have been in use. Show all existing drainfields and/or sanitary sewer
easements. If any sewer easements are to be vacated include the vacation of the easement
on this plat.
11. [32.5.2(i) & (n)] Address the following:
b) Provide a second road sections for those portions of the road that include parking on one side.
Ensure that the parking is shown properly and that the remaining drive aisles meet the
minimum requirements for VDOT, Engineering and Fire Rescue.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Although the comment for Swede Street has been
addressed changes to the section for Empire Street and Marsac Street have been made and
no longer meet the minimum requirements. Address the following change for changes in
parking on the 2nd submission:
i. Ensure that the portions of Empire Street and Swede Street where parallel parking
have been added meet the minimum requirements for a planting strip.
ii. Provide a street section for the portions of Empire Street and Swede Street where
parallel parking has been added and ensure this section meets all minimums.
iii. Revise the note, added next to the two provided street sections, to no longer state "See
road section below for additional road cross-section and right of way modification for
Marsac Street." It appears to state that the Swede Street section will apply to the
portion of Marsac Street with parking. However, that section cannot apply because the
ROW width is not the same and the planting strip is not being provided. Also, this does
not address the similar issues with Empire Street.
iv. Ensure that the Road Plan and all road information shown in the site plan match once
all comments are addressed.
e) Revise the label for the existing access easement to TMP45-112F to include the correct deed
book and page number. The information provided does not look correct.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment and ensure it matches the deed
book and page number shown in the proposed final subdivision plat.
i) The internal road crosswalks are not supported by VDOT but should be included to meet
County requirements. Therefore, the HOA must maintain the crosswalks within the public road
right of way. Ensure that that is included in the HOA legal documents that must be submitted
for County review.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment.
j) Final: Provide Bollard on both ends of the Emergency Access Easement. Add a label to the
bollard detail added to sheet 4 and ensure that the leader arrows, for the labels for the
bollards, points at one of the bollards.
12. [32.5.2(1) & 14-303(L)] Address the following:
a) Provide the location of any existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
drainage, sight distance, water, sanitary sewer, telephone, cable, electric and gas. Indicate
the deed book and page reference for all exiting utility easements located on the property.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. See comment #7 above.
ii. Address all revisions required in the Road Plan. This includes, but may not be limited
to, a sight distance easement within TMP45-112F.
13. [32.5.2(b) & (n) & 14-302(A)(8)] Proposed Lots; Information on proposed uses; existing and
proposed improvements. Address the following:
d) Provide all proposed lot dimensions. All rear, many sides and some front lot line dimensions
have not been provided on the site plan/plat.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Ensure the lot dimensions can be read. There are cases of where there is text on
text and the values can not be deciphered. Examples are the rear lot line for lots
39 & 40 on sheet 3 and the rear lot line for lot 3 on sheet 4.
ii. Ensure each of the distances for a specific lot are provided. Examples are:
a. The front lot line for lots 27 & 28 where there is one dimension at the
intersection of the two lots but no single front lot line dimension for the
individual lots.
b. The side lot line between lots 3 & 4.
c. All of the front lot lines for lots 11 throuah 23.
e) A calculation for the required recreational areas has been provided, a tot lot area has been
shown, and a recreational field was mentioned in a note but not located. Ensure all of the
required recreational area is shown, the areas specified, and that all recreational requirements
are met and provided, including the maximum slope for any recreational area.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide a fence around the tot lot.
ii. Specify the area within the tot lot and ensure it meets the minimum tot lot
requirement. The area shown on the site plan does not meet the minimum area
requirements and also does not appear to be big enough to contain all of the
equipment shown in the pictures.
iii. Ensure that the equipment shown in the plan view matches the equipment shown in
any pictures and details. The photos provided to not match the equipment shown.
Examples are:
a. The picture of the swing shows 6 seats, the plan view appears to show 4
(as is listed on the cover sheet) and may not be sufficient area.
b. No horizontal ladder is shown on the site plan view.
c. The eauioment shown in the pictures does not appear to be able to be
combined in any way similar to what is shown in the site plan layout.
iv. Show a gate in the tot lot fence and a sidewalk to the gate.
V. Remove any reference to "or equal" or equipment being substituted. The
equipment specified on the plan must be the equipment installed. Revisions to the
equipment must be approved by the County.
vi. Provide details and specifications on the equipment. A photo and model number
are not sufficient.
vii. Provide details and information on the two required benches.
viii. A "Recreational Playfield" is listed but the type of field is not specified and is not
shown. Either show the specific type of playing field or provide a label that
specifies the grading, level nature of the open area, and turf planted such that the
open area would be safe and appropriate to be utilized for games.
ix. Ensure that the Plavfield and tot lot meet the minimum area reauired for 52 lots.
f) Provide and show pedestrian connections to the tot lot, and other recreational uses, that
includes handicapped ramps and warning strips in the final site plan.
3
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment and ensure that the pedestrian
connections meet ADA requirements.
h) Revise the parking calculations based upon the reduction of residential units based upon R-6
zoning without bonus densities.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Calculation has been updated. However, some
of the required quest parking locations need revision to be allowed (see street section
issues specified in both the site plan and road plan comments). Revise the "provided"
portion of the calculations once these changes have been made.
i) Specify the maximum height of all proposed retaining walls.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Include a maximum wall height label for the wall
behind lots 22 & 23 on sheet 8.
14. [32.5.2(m)] Ingress and Egress. Revise the plan/plat to show the distance to the centerline of the
nearest street intersection in both direction and not just one.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. Address the comment.
16. [32.5.2 a, 14-302(B)(6)] General information; Tax Map and parcel number. Provide the current
name of the owner, zoning district, tax map and parcel number and present use of abutting
parcels. Address the following:
b) No uses are specified on any of the parcels on sheet 2. Provide that information for the
subject parcel and the adjoining parcels.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment.
18. [32.5.a(c), 32.5.2 d & 14-302(A)(12)] Topography and proposed grading. Address the following:
a) Ensure that the design regulations for managed -steep slopes are met.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Revise "Preserved/Managed Slopes" note on the cover sheet to specify that there are
four areas of managed slopes. TMP45112F2 also has areas within the Managed
Steep Slopes Overlay district. The area is adjacent Berkmar Drive.
ii. Ensure that each of the four areas of managed steep slopes on sheet 2 have a label
with a leader pointing to them.
19. [32.5.20), 32.5.2(k) & 14-302(A)(5)] Existing and proposed sewer and drainage facilities. Address
the following:
a) There are existing buildings on the site, but no sanitary sewer connection or existing drainfield
appears to be shown on the existing conditions sheet. Ensure existing condition sheets shows
all existing sewer and drainage infrastructure.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. See comment #7 above.
b) Proposed sewer and drainage facilities. Indicate the direction of flow in all pipes and
watercourses with arrows.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Indicate the direction of flow in all drainage pipes
with arrows.
c) Provide the location and dimension of all existing and proposed private and public easements.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Label the proposed private wall easement behind
Lots 22 and 23.
20. [32.5.2(o) & 14-302(A)14)] Areas to be dedicated or reserved. Add a note on the plan stating that
"All new public street right-of-way shown hereon are hereby dedicated to the County for public
use."
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address this comment.
23. [Comment] Provide a copy of all exiting off -site easements from off -site property owners or
submit proposed off -site easement plat for review. Any proposed required easements, and their
legal documents, must be submitted separately from the initial site plan, reviewed, approved and
4
recorded prior to the initial site plan approval.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the following:
a) There are proposed offsite improvements, shown within TMP45-112F (sidewalk, curb, putter
and drive aisle), on the site plan. However, no offsite construction easement is shown on this
plan. Include in the plan any required offsite temporarily construction easements.
b) Any required legal documents for offsite easements must be submitted and if not vet recorded
then reviewed, approved and recorded prior to the final site plan approval.
25. [4.7(d), 14-303(G) & 14-317] An instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of the open
space areas, and any other improvements that are to be maintained by the HOA in perpetuity
require County Attorney approval prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Submit the instrument for review. The instrument must be
reviews and approve by planning and the County Attorney's office prior to approval prior to final
site plan approval.
27. [14-302(B)(4) & Code of Virginia 57-27.1] Provide a note on the site plan and subdivision plat
that specifies the state requirement of right to access of the cemetery.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Provide a note on the site plan and subdivision plat that specifies the state requirement of right
to access of the cemetery.
b) Provide sidewalk access to the pate of each cemetery area.
28. [Comment] See the other SRC reviewer comments attached. All SRC reviewer comments must
be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. See most of the other SRC reviewer comments attached.
All SRC reviewer comments must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
29. [32.7.9.5, 32.7.9.3 & 32.7.9.4] Provide street trees along Berkmar Drive and Woodburn Road.
Street trees are required along all existing and proposed streets. No trees are shown along
Berkmar Drive. Woodburn Road is shown to have tree preservation areas. However, the majority
of the tree preservation area along the road are also within an overhead easement. Also, it
appears that most if not all of the trees along Woodburn Road may either be within the easement,
may not be healthy, or may not be correct type of trees for street trees. Provide all required
information for existing trees utilized to meet landscaping requirements.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) The calculation for required and provided street trees no longer matches the trees shown
on the site plan. Revised the site plan and calculation to match and ensure that the
minimum large shade tree requirements are met.
b) Ensure that all trees not in the ROW or in HOA owned open space have a landscaping
easement shown and that the HOA documents submitted with the final subdivision plat and
final site plan provides for perpetual maintenance.
c) The number of large shade trees along Woodburn road does not meet the minimum street
tree requirements and also is not the same number shown in the Road Plan. Address the
following:
i. Ensure that the Larae shade street trees in the road plan and the site plan are
consistent.
ii. Ensure that the spacing of the large shade trees is at a maximum 50' on center
(this site is not in the EC and it not being reviewed by the ARB). If there are other
requirements that mandate closer spacing, they can be placed closer as long as
other requirements (such as screening of double frontage lots) are also met.
iii. Some of the large shade trees proposed along Woodburn Road are planted less
than 10' from the overhead utilitv line. Ensure that the trees are planted far enouah
away from the overhead lines.
5
iv. The tvoe. auantitv. and soacina of trees alona Woodburn no lonaer match those
shown in the road plan. Ensure the road plan and final site plan match and meet all
requirements.
d) The number and type of trees along Berkmar Drive does not meet the minimum street tree
requirements and also is not the same number shown in the Road Plan. Address the
following:
i. Cladrastis kentukea appears to be medium tree and is likely classified as an
ornamental rather than a shade tree. Ensure the species utilized meets the
requirements for a large shade tree.
ii. Revise the street frontage for Berkmar Street. It is listed as 235', which appears to
be only one side of the intersection. There appears to be about 40' on the southern
side of the intersection with Empire Street not included in the frontage calculation.
Ensure the number of required street trees is provided.
iii. At least one tree should be provided on the southside of Empire Street's
intersection with Berkmar Drive since there is 40' on the southern side of the
intersertinn_
iv. The type, quantity, and spacing of trees along both Berkmar Drive no longer match
those shown in the road plan. Ensure the road plan and final site plan match and
meet all requirements.
30. [32.7.9.5 & 32.7.9.4(c)] Provide street trees at the required spacing and of the correct type along
all streets. In addition to the comment above, ensure that the correct type of trees (large shade
trees) are included in the landscape plan and at the correct quantity based upon the spacing
requirements. Large shade trees are required at 50 feet on center for the full length of all existing
and proposed roads. If VDOT requirements and/or utilities restrict specific areas of the road
frontage the same number of street trees are required but they can be spaced closer together
and/or when necessary, and with approval, placed within landscape easements within the
individual development parcels.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Ensure that the street length for Swede Street in the landscape calculations includes the full
length of the road right-of-way to the adioining parcel connections. Address the following:
i. Revise the street frontage for Swede Street to be the full length of both sides of the
street. 915' is listed but it appears to be closer to 1,100'. Revise the calculation and
provide the required street trees.
ii. Revise the street frontage of Empire Street and provide the required street trees.
1,235' is listed but the length appears to be closer to 1,440'.
b) Landscaping easements and the legal documents for perpetual maintenance of the trees will
be required to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval
for all trees outside of the public right-of-way and within development lots.
c) Street trees have been added to the site plan, but the required and provided street tree
calculations have not been updated. Ensure the street tree calculations are updated and
correct.
31. [32.5.2 (e), (n) 32.6.20) & 32.7.9.4 (c)] Address the following:
a) Provide a landscape plan that shows all required landscaping as well as the calculation, charts
and tables showing that all landscaping requirements are met.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Revise the screening for the double frontage lots as follows:
a. Do not utilize Magnolia virginiana for a screening tree. It is a deciduous small
ornamental tree and not evergreen.
N.
b. Because the double frontage lot screening area is directly below overhead
utility lines, unless specifically stated as being allowed by the easement
holders, utilizing trees (especially tall ones) for the screening is not appropriate.
The Pinus Virginiana is a tall tree and will conflict with the lines. The Ilex `Mary
Nell' is relatively low growing and may not conflict. The Juniperus Virginiana is
slow growing, and would not conflict for many years, but could ultimately still
require significant trimming even if the easement holder allowed it. Therefore, it
is suggested, that at least within the assumed 20' easement area directly below
the overhead lines that screening shrubs be utilized instead of screening trees.
Ensure screening shrubs are proposed at the correct height, spacing and of the
correct species.
c. Ensure the layout of the double frontage screening area meets the minimum
requirement for spacing. As currently proposed, there are areas where there
are gaps in the staggered rows, which will not be allowed. If a large shade
street tree in in the area that does not take the place of a screening tree or
shrub. Either the street trees should be adjusted to allow the screening planting
to be place or they both need fit in the area.
ii. Revise the calculations and what is provided for the tree canopy requirements.
Address the following:
a. The trees within the easements are no longer being claimed as "preservation
area". However, a 1,650 SF area of canopy is being claimed as "preservation
area" adloining TMP 45-112F. This area is extremely thin, and no information
on whether the trees that provide the canopy are actually located on the subject
parcels. If this area is to be utilized to meet the canopy requirements additional
information must be provided to the site plan including the information specified
in 32.7.9.4(c)(2) including the location and caliper of the trunks. If the tree
trunks are not on the property/project area then they canopy provided by them
cannot be "preserved".
b. Do not include the Ilex crenata `Steeds' shrub as part of the canopy calculation.
As stated in 32.7.9.8 in addition to trees "... other plan material exceeding five
feet in height at a maturity of ten years after planting." can also be utilized. Ilex
crenata `Steeds' only pets to 4' in height after 10 years and therefore should not
be included in the canopy calculation.
c. If the square footage of a recreational area is not being including in the area for
the canopy calculation, then the trees and shrubs planted in it cannot be
counted towards meeting the canopy calculation. There are a significant
number of trees within open space D that cannot be counted toward meeting
the minimum canopy if the open space is subtracted from the calculation.
b) Preserve all existing trees that are to remain. There are "Tree Preservation Areas" within the
site. If they are to remain include the following:
i. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the
trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing,
grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond
the limits of clearing.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. For any area shown as being preserved, and
utilized to meet any landscaping requirements, show the limits of clearing and tree
protection fencing in the grading plan and not lust in the landscape-e plan.
ii. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the
agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as
otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall
conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
pages III-393 through III-413, and as hereafter amended.
Final: Comment not yet fully addressed. The owner of the parcel must sign the
conservation checklist prior to the final site plan approval. The signature currently on the
list appears to be that of the Drimary contact for the Droiect and not the owner.
7
e) On the existing conditions sheet label the area of existing trees with the type of trees
(evergreen, deciduous, or a mix of both) and show areas where existing vegetation will be
removed.
Final: Comment not vet addressed. Address the comment.
g) Ensure that the street trees shown will be allowed. If not, show that alternative locations are
provided either within or outside of the right-of-way. If the trees will be outside of the right-of-
way landscaping easements will be required with ownership and perpetual maintenance of the
easements and landscaping put in place prior to the final site plan approval.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. For the trees outside of the right-of-way and in
development lots landscaping easements will be required with ownership and perpetual
maintenance of the easements and landscaping put in place prior to the final site plan
approval. This easement should be included in the HOA agreement, which must be
submitted, approved, and a signed and notarized copy provided to the reviewer4 prior to the
final site plan approval.
32. [32.8.2] Infrastructure improvement plans. All infrastructure required to construct the development
shall be reviewed, approved, and built or bonded before the final site plan can be approved. This
includes all offsite improvements required to serve the development, including road plans, WPO
plan, water and sewer connections.
Final: Comment not vet fully addressed. All infrastructure required to construct the development
shall be reviewed, approved, and built or bonded before the final site plan can be approved. This
includes all onsite and offsite improvements required to serve the development, including road
plans, WPO plan, water and sewer connections. See comments above for some noted offsite
improvements.
Comments from the Final Site Plan review:
33. [Comment] Revise the coversheet to include the project number of SDP2020-42.
34. [Comment] Revise the existing conditions sheet to show, and state, that all of the individual
internal parcel boundaries will be vacated. Some are labeled but there are additional lines that
require the "to be vacated" label.
35. [Comment] Since garages are being utilities to meet the minimum parking requirements linework
representing them should be shown on the site plan.
36. [Comment] It appears that the required, curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking and accessway
improvements within TMP45-112F will be impacted by this site plan. A LOR for that approved site
plan may be required. Ensure that all improvements shown in TMP112F, and in the access
easement area leading to it, are accurately represented including the number of parking spaces.
The planning reviewer will provide information on whether a LOR will be necessary or if a note to
the file will be sufficient.
37. [Comment] Instruments assuring the perpetual maintenance of the stormwater management
facility, drainage easements, open space areas, landscaping and any other improvements that are
to be maintained by the HOA in perpetuity must be submitted, reviewed, approved, and signed
versions of the documents must be provided prior to the final site plan approval.
38. [Comment] In addition to the attached engineering comments also address the additional
comment and request for information that was sent by the engineering reviewer on 6/23/2020 in
reference to improvements and conditions impacting TMP45-112F.
E3
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle.
The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may be found on the County
Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to
submit a revised final site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date
of this letter the application shall be deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(a-)albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
W
Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Berkmar Overlook - FSP
SDP2020-00042
Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins-en ing eerine com]
Berkmar Development, LLC / 2496 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
29 Apr 2020
13 Jun 2020
John Anderson
Paty Satemye
Engineering has reviewed the final site plan, and offers the following comments.
Sheet 1
1. A road plan needs to be approved prior to final site plan approval; SUB202000004 is under review.
2. Ensure FSP is consistent with road plan, final plat (SUB202000071), and approved WP0201900050.
3. Sheet 2, Note 5: Recommend correct typos at `195' and `performs'.
4. Sheet 3: Revise graphic depiction of CG-12 ramps in radial curbs, similar to revised CG-12 shown on the
MJH Apartments FSP.
Sheets 3, 4
5. Provide copy of recorded Retaining Wall Maintenance Agreement for retaining walls that cross subdivision
lot lines. We appreciate deed db. _ pg. _ labels on the FSP.
6. Show and label public drainage easements using a lighter line -type (similar to proposed sight distance
easements). Public drainage easements appear to cross portions of Lots 23, 24, 43, 47, 29, and 30.
Sheet 4
7. Empire Street: Revise per Planning Division Road Plan review comment to provide a 6' planting strip
between bump out parking spaces and sidewalk. Engineering support Planning Div. Road Plan review
comment.
8. Add sheet 9 detail reference for `proposed dry curb' (Int. Swede /Marsac) since meaning of label is unclear.
9. Label post /embedment bollard detail, upper-righthand corner. Provide additional bollards: 6' OC, max.
10. Sheet 6: Provide public drainage easement for Lot 23 (every other lot with public drainage easement
appears covered) —thank you.
11. Sheet 8: Proposed grade directs (lawn surface) runoff to retaining walls on Lot 31, and Lots 35-42. In
addition to proposed private roof drain system, provide runoff conveyance that redirects surface runoff
away from back face of retaining walls on these lots. Runoff may not simply sheet over the top of walls.
Sheet 9
12. Revise cross-section for Empire Street to show bump out parking with planting strip, if a 6' planting strip
between these parking spaces and sidewalks persists as a Planning comment. A text block is insufficient
guide and may confuse if intended to modify a cross-section. A graphic cross-section must adequately
depict design of Empire Street through portions with and without bump out parking.
13. Provide VDOT (or equivalent) details for:
a. Retaining wall safety railing
b. Pipe bedding (concrete)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
c. Pipe bedding (HDPE)
d. Inlet shaping (IS-1)
e. '/2" steel plate (Str. 6, 8, etc.)
f. MH steps (ST-1)
g. dry curb
h. Ex. cemetery proposed black decorative fence with gate details.
14. Sheet 14: Label Str. 6, 8, etc. (vertical drop >4') to receive 'h" steel plate in floor of MH.
15. Sheets 4, 6, 20: Recommend label references to cemetery decorative fencing /gate (civil) details.
16. Sheet 19, Note 1: Indicate slopes > 3:1 will be planted with native steep slope mix with annual ryegrass.
Please provide additional detail as well as plan notes that indicate this is not a `grass' mix that requires
periodic mowing. Provide specific details. Please ref. ACDSM 8.A.2. for vegetative ground cover
requirements to plant proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 with species which will not require mowing.
17. Compare design of proposed public drainage easements against ACDSM required width equation:
Required width: 10'+(pipe dia. or channel width) + 2'+ 2(depth-5'). Recommend easement table.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832-x3069.
Thank you
SDP2020-00042 Berkmar Overlook FSP 061320
Review Comments for SDP202000042 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: BERMAR OVERLOOK - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, May 21, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections Requested Changes Nd
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Buildings or structures built before January 1, 1986 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a demolition
permit_ Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such from Albemarle County and VDOLI Contact VDOLI for their
additional requirements and permits for demolition projects at 640-662-3580 x131_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O61'181 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000042 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: BERMAR OVERLOOK - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson AOSA I Requested Changes Nd
0 0-05- 7: (from email to planner) Berkmar Overlook is under review_
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O61'181 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000042 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: BERMAR OVERLOOK - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Victoria Fort _ERWSA Requested Changes
0 0-06- 3: (from email to planning reviewer) On the note for SRWSA will need to review shoring plans from a licensed
Oeotechnical Engineer__." can you include s___(1 days) prior to boring activities_"
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: Fo612-T2020
Review Comments for SDP202000042 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: BERMAR OVERLOOK - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox �l Fire Rescue Requested Changes `d
1 _ Add a hydrant near the intersection of Empire Street and Marsac
Street-
_ Move the hydrant at the end of Swede Street closer to the intersection with Marsac Street-
3- Provide ISO needed fire flow for the average structure in the development-
4- Provide the currently available fire flow based on a recent ADA fire flow test_
A
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O61'181 0020
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
April 30, 2020
Patricia Saternye
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2020-00042- Berkmar Overlook - Final Site Plan
Dear Ms. Saternye:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786-2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced Berkmar Overlook - Final Site Plan as submitted by
Collins Engineering, dated 18 April 2020 and find it to be generally acceptable.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Review Comments for SDP202000042 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: BERMAR OVERLOOK - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, June 05, 2020 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Kevin McDermott DID Planning No Objection
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O61'181 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000042 lFinal Site Development Plan
Project Name: BERMAR OVERLOOK - FINAL - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, May 01, 2020 DepartmentlaivisionlAgency: Review Sys:
Reviewer: Brian Becker�� E911 No Objection
No objection
Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: O61'181 0020