HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000042 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-11-19County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 23, 2020
Rev. 1: November 19, 2020
Subiect: SDP202000042 Berkmar Overlook - Final Site Plan
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 yet fully addressed.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed.
[32.5.1, 32.5.2(a), 14-302(B)((8), & 4.19] Yards. Address the following:
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 yet 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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Lot 46 is also a corner lot. Revise its 2nd front
to add labels and setback lines for the front minimum and maximum setbacks.
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Subdivision plat was not resubmitted. Upon
resubmittal ensure that the square feet of the development lots in this site plan match the
acreage of the same lots in the proposed subdivision 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 yet 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:
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Revised the street section stationing chart
to include accurate information for Swede Street. Address the following:
a. Include a line for the first portion of the road (approximately 10+00 to 10+09).
b. Revise both values for the first provided line, and the 54' ROW section, to be
more accurate and not include the portion of the road where there is no parking
next to the entrance Marsac Street.
c. Expand the 48' ROW section to between Marsac Street and the park to include
iv. Ensure that the Road Plan and all road information shown in the site plan match once
all comments are addressed.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Apply comment # 11(b)(ii) to the Road
Plan as well. That comment was not included in the Road Plan comments for the
9/28/2020 submission.
V. Rev. 1: rNew Comment] Revise the 60' wide road section so that the dimension for
the overall width of the ROW is shown as 60' and not 54'.
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 yet addressed. Address the comment and ensure it matches the deed
book and page number shown in the proposed final subdivision plat.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. The Deed Book and Page number were updated in
the Road Plan but not in the Site Plan. Revised the site plan to have the correct deed book
and page number for this easement and ensure the Road Plan and Site Plan match.
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 yet addressed. Address the comment.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. The HOA documents have not vet been submitted
13. [32.5.2(b) & (n) & 14-302(A)(8)] Proposed Lots; Information on proposed uses; existing and
proposed improvements. Address the following:
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 yet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Provide a fence around the tot lot.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. A fence has been shown, and a picture and
section detail of the fence have been provided, in the site plan. However, the
dimension and notes in reference to the height of the fence differ. One says 42"
and the other specifies T-0". Ensure that these measurements match and meet
minimum requirements.
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Address the comment.
b. No horizontal ladder is shown on the site plan view.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. There is now a horizontal ladder
shown in the site plan. However, that is integrated with the slide and
climbers in the site plan view and not an individual piece of equipment as
shown in the pictures. Address the comment.
c. The equipment 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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Address the comment.
vi. Provide details and specifications on the equipment. A photo and model number
are not sufficient.
separate document included with the submittal." No separate document was
received. Address the following:
a. Provide the details and specifications for each piece of recreational
equipment.
b. Ensure that those details and specifications are integrated into the site plan
and are not submitted as a separate document. They must be included in
the site plan.
vii. Provide details and information on the two required benches.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment. No details were
included in the site plan or submitted separately. Please note that this detail must
be integrated into the site plan and not submitted as a separate document.
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. The labels provided specify "Proposed
Grass Recreation Field" but provide no other information. Address the following:
a. Add to the labels the maximum grade of the field area.
b. Provide a legend in the landscape sheets that specifies the hatch for the
play field is turf planted as well as the other ground covers specified by
hatch.
c. Ensure the area of the play field (level turf planted areal is the size specified
on the cover sheet.
d. Adiust the landscaping such that the tree trunks are lust outside the play
field area.
ix. Ensure that the playfield and tot lot meet the minimum area required for 52 lots.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. See comments above.
X. Rev. 1: [New Commentl Ensure the pictures show up in the PDF version of the site
plan. Two of the 5 pictures in the "Miracle Recreation Equipment" box do not show
up. They appear to be "Linked" instead of "inserted" pictures and therefore cannot
be viewed except on the computer at the consultant's office.
19. [32.5.20), 32.5.2(k) & 14-302(A)(5)] Existing and proposed sewer and drainage facilities. Address
the following:
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Revise the label for the wall easement behind lots
31 and 35 through 42 to include blank spaces for the deed book and page number for the
easements once the plat is recorded.
d) Rev. 1: rNew Comment] No maintenance easement for that walls appears to have been
included in the site plan. Address the following:
i. Add a retaining wall easement to the side Lot 43.
ii. Ensure that this easement is added on the next submission of the subdivision plat.
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
recorded prior to the initial site plan approval.
Final: Comment not yet addressed. Address the following:
a) There are proposed offsite improvements, shown within TMP45-112F (sidewalk, curb, gutter
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment.
b) Any required legal documents for offsite easements must be submitted and if not yet recorded
then reviewed, approved and recorded prior to the final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment.
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 yet addressed. Submit the instrument for review. The instrument must be
reviewed and approve by planning and the County Attorney's office prior to approval prior to final
site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment.
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 yet 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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Revise the note provided to state, "According to
genealogy research, who has given reasonable notice to the owner of record or to the
occupant of the property or both."
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 yet 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.
no objections. Engineering comments and letters from the other reviewers have been attached.
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 yet fully addressed. Address the following:
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Ensure that the HOA documents submitted with
the final subdivision plat and final site plan provides for perpetual maintenance for all trees
within the landscaping easement within individual lots.
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:
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment.
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:
ii. Revise the calculations and what is provided for the tree canopy requirements.
Address the following:
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 gets to 4' in height after 10 years and therefore should not
be included in the canopy calculation.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Jasminum Nudiflorum (Winter
Jasmine) does only pets to 4' in height in 10 years and therefore should not be
included in the canopy calculation.
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 yet 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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment.
h) Rev. 1: rNew Comment] Revise note 4 on the coversheet such that it matches the tree
spacing specified elsewhere in the site plan.
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 yet 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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. Address the comment.
Comments from the Final Site Plan review:
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet fully addressed. The existing layout, as well as the proposed
improvements, to TMP 45-112F, has been provided. However, in additions to the modifications to
(and the associated road plan) can be approved. Follow one of the following sets of steps:
a) Zoning Clearance METHOD (order of steps):
1) Owner of the TMP 45-112F requests and receives a zoning clearance, based on a
reduction of employees and/or students, to reduce the number of parking spaces
required in SDP2004-10.
2) Owner of the TMP 45-112F provides official approval for all work within that parcel
that is proposed in SDP2020-42 & SUB2020-4.
3) Road Plan is approved.
4) Subdivision plat (including required easements) is approved.
5) Site plan is approved.
6) A letter will be put in the SDP2004-10 Project Folder, and on County View, that
documents the Zoning Clearance and the changes to the lot layout shown in the
approved Berkmar Overlook site plan.
b) LOR METHOD (order of steps
1) Submit and get approved a LOR for SDP2004-10 that shows all of the changes
proposed to the site and also meets all parking and dumpster regulation.
2) Owner of the TMP 45-112F provides official approval for all work within that parcel
that is proposed in SDP2020-42 & SUB2020-4.
3) Road Plan is approved.
4) Subdivision plat (including required easements) is approved.
5) Site plan is approved.
c) Additional revisions to the Berkmar Overlook site plan and road plan are required within
TMP 45-112F for both of the methods above. They include:
1) Show the dumpster.
2) Show a proposed dumpster enclosure, enclosure detail and screening.
3) Ensure all requirements for the dumpster and dumpster pad are met. The
must be fully reviewed.
4) If utilizing the "LOR METHOD" revise the layout to provide the required number of
parking spaces previously calculated on SDP2004-10. Also, update the parking
provided note on the site plan to be accurate.
d) The approved site plan (SDP2004-10) and its LORs will be included attached.
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.
Rev. 1: Comments not vet addressed. Address the comment.
39
40. Rev. 1: rNew Comment 32.5.2(a)l Revise all adioinina lot labels to include the zoning district
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(Walbemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3250 for further information.
� A
�/AGll�p
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
Berkmar Overlook - FSP
Project file number:
SDP2020-00042
Plan preparer:
Scott Collins, Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a),collins-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.:
Berk mar Development, LLC / 2496 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Plan received date:
29 Apr 2020
(Rev. 1)
30 Sep 2020
Date of comments:
13 Jun 2020
(Rev. 1)
1 Oct 2020
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Paty Satemye
Engineering has reviewed the final site plan, and offers the following comments. (Rev. 1) Please note: Several
review comment persists (items 4. 5), majority of prior Engineering review comments are addressed.
Sheet 1
1. A road plan needs to be appro� for to final site plan approval, SUB202000004 is under review. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Note: Revised Road Plan submitted 9/27/20.
2. Ensure FSP is consistent with c )1an, final plat (SUB202000071), and approved WPO201900050. (Rev.
1) Addressed. Applicant response (9/16/20 letter): `The FSP is now consistent with the revised Road Plan.'
3. Sheet 2, Note 5: Recommend a , t typos at ` 195' and `performs'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Sheet 3: Revise graphic depiction of CG-12 ramps in radial curbs, similar to revised CG-12 shown on the
MJH Apartments FSP. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Please depict similar to 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 ESP. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `A copy of
the recorded Retaining Wall Maintenance Agreement shall be provided as soon as it is recorded.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
(Rev. 1) Remaining review comments (items 6-17) are addressed.
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 comer. 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)
c. Pipe bedding (HDPE)
d. Inlet shaping (IS-1)
e. %" 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 %:" 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 Berkman Overlook FSP 100120rev 1
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
October 27, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: John Anderson
Re: SUB-2020-00004 - Berkmar Overlook — Final Road & Utility Plan
Review #4
SDP-2020-00042 — Berkmar Overlook — Final Site Plan
Review #2
Dear Mr. Anderson:
(804) 786-2701
Fax: (804) 786-2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plat and plans as submitted by Collins Engineering,
dated 09 October 2020, and find them generally acceptable.
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,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING