HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900015 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-06-100
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Scott Collins, P.E. (scottkcollins-en ing eering com)
From:
Cameron Langille — Principal Planner
Division:
Planning Services
Date:
April 25, 2019
First Revision: September 5, 2019
Second Revision: January 29, 2020
Third revision: April 14, 2021
Fourth Revision: June 10, 2021
Subject:
SDP201900015 — Brookhill Block 8B - Final Site Plan
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will
recommend approval of 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.]
Comments from SDP20180054 - Brookhill Block 8B Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
1. [32.5.2 (i)] Please address the following comments related to road improvements:
a. The final site plan for Block 8B will need to accurately depict all improvements within the right-of-ways visible on
the plans. A road plan application must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to final site plan and final plat
approval. Once the road plans are approved, the right of ways for new streets in Block 8B must be reviewed,
approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Applicant has acknowledged that a road plan will
be submitted for review and approval prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 2: Comment no longer applies — all
units proposed in Block 8B will be multifamily units, no new lots are being created for individual units, and
therefore all Block 8B transportation corridors are classified as travelways that can be reviewed/approved as
part of the final site plan.
b. 114-410 and 14-4221 Alley A must have sidewalks and street trees along both sides of the street. Rev. 1: Alley A
has been re -named to Noush Court. Based on re -design of the development. Noush Court meets the standards for
design as an alley in accordance with Section 2.8 of the COD and the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance.
Please re -label Noush Court as a "Private Alley" on all applicable sheets. Rev. 2: Comment no longer applies — all
units proposed in Block 8B will be multifamily units, no new lots are being created for individual units, and
therefore all Block 8B transportation corridors are classified as travelways that can be reviewed/approved as
part of the final site plan.
c. All roads shown within Block 8B are labeled as proposed private streets or private alleys. Per Section 2.8.1 on pages
24-25 of the Code of Development, the following streets within Block 8B are required to follow the "Neighborhood
Streets— VDOT Public Roads" standard: all of Wesley Circle, Noush Lane, and Road E. The streets shown do not
have the required features for the Neighborhood Streets type, including parking along one side of the street. Please
revise. If the layout and design of Block 8B is affected due to widening the right of way to incorporate on -street
parking, the site plan and preliminary plat may need to go through the site review committee again. Rev. 1: based
on the re -design of the Block 8B layout, the only public streets needed to meet the County's subdivision standards
and the Brookhill COD requirements are Wesley Circle from the intersection with Stella Lane to the intersection
with Wesley Lane. and Wesley Lane from the intersection with Wesley Circle and Noush Court. All required public
street segments currently meet the standards for the Neighborhood Streets Cross Section from Section 2.8 (page 24
of the COD). Please see VDOT comments for additional items to be addressed based on the road design. Rev. 2:
Comment no longer applies — all units proposed in Block 8B will be multifamily units, no new lots are being
created for individual units, and therefore all Block 8B transportation corridors are classified as travelways
that can be reviewed/approved as part of the final site plan.
d. Please label all roads visible on Block 813 final subdivision plat with a width measurement and state whether the
road is public or private. Prior to final plat approval, all street right of ways that have been dedicated to public use
or under private easement should feature a label stating the deed book and page number. Rev. 1: Noush Court ends
to be re -labeled as a "Private Alley" and state whether it will be an easement, or will be in fee simple part of the lots
adjacent to it. This will be an issue that comes up during review of the Block 8B final site plan. See Section 14-236
of the Subdivision Ordinance for more information. Rev. 2: Comment no longer applies — all units proposed in
Block 8B will be multifamily units, no new lots are being created for individual units, and therefore all Block
8B transportation corridors are classified as travelways that can be reviewed/approved as part of the final
site plan.
2. [General Comment] Lots 16-27 do not meet minimum frontage requirements because their driveway is shown along Alley
A/Noush Court and the other side of the lot fronts along a private street "Road E." See page 30 of the Code of Development
for further information. Rev. 1: Comment addressed based on current re -design.
a. Per discussion between staff and the applicant at the Site Review Committee Meeting, the plans will be revised so
that Road E is designed to the 'Neighborhood Streets — VDOT Public Roads standard in Section 2.8.1 of the COD.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed based on current re -design.
3. IZMA2015000071 Sheet 2 is not the approved Application Plan. Revise to include the approved plan that was modified at
the Board of Supervisors meeting to not include the trailhead at Ashwood Blvd. Link to approved plan. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
4. [Application Plan; COD; Proffers] When will the greenway easement within Block 8A be dedicated to public use? Per
proffer #2 of ZMA201500007, the greenway must be dedicated to the County. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Please be
aware that the County can request dedication of the greenwav at the times specified by the approved proffers.
2.4 Greenspace and Amenities
Brookhill will feature over 100 acres of Greenspace This Greenspace represents more than 35%
of the entire community's land area, and includes the Buffer areas, the Greenway and stream
buffers, parks and civic amenity areas, and general open space The Greenspace will not only
provide a linear trail system throughout the community, but shall also preserve environmentally
sensitive areas such as steep slopes, streams, and stream buffers All of the Greenspace areas
shall be located outside of private lots and right -of --way All Greenspace within Brookhtll, with
the exception of the Greeenway, will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Establishment of the buffers, trails, and amenities within the Greenspace will be the
responsibility of the developer
Upon written request by the County, but not prior to the issuance of the five hundredth (5001h)
Pencil for a dwelling within the Project, the Owner shall dedicate to the County an easement for
public use over the Greenway area, as shown on the Application Plan. Prior to the C'ounty's
request to dedicate such easement, the Owner may dedicate portions of the Greenway by
easement concurrently with one or more subdivision plats for areas lying adjacent to the
Greenway: provided however, that (honer may reserve in such casements, rights of access for
grading, utilities and maintenance. Each subdivision plat shall depict the Greenway area to be
dedicated and shall bear a notation that the Greenway area is dedicated for public use. If, at the
time the County requests dedication of the Greenway, any part of the Greenway that has not been
dedicated by subdivision plat, shall be (within six (6) months of such request) at Owner's cost,
surveyed, platted and recorded with one or more deeds of easement dedication.
5. [ZMA201500007] In accordance with Section 2.14 on page 31 of the COD, lots 31-35 do not qualify as amenity oriented
lots because there is not an open area that is 50' in width from face of building to face of building. These lots must be served
by a public street. See comment #2 above for further information. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2 (o) and ZMA2015000071 Please expand the Block Area Summary on Sheet 3 to include all the columns contained
in Table 2 of the Code of Development. The required and proposed acreages of each feature should also be stated so that
staff can verify compliance with the minimum requirements for greenspace/amenities, as well as the development area
requirements.
a. The proposed acreages of each feature in Blocks 3 and 4 that are currently under site plan review should also be
stated even though they are not part of the Block 8B initial site plan/preliminary plat review. Rev. 1: These acreages
appear to be incorrect on the Block Area Summary. Please verify. Rev. 2: Staff has reviewed the Block 8A final site
plan (dated 7/1/2019) table to verify whether acreages of certain features match up and are correct. The following
were identified as not matching: the Block 4C row is missingacreages creages for Greenway Required (2.31 acres according
to Block 8A final site plan), pen Space Required (1.46 acres according to Block 8A final site plan). and Total
Greenspace Required (0.85 acres according to Block 8A final site plan). The Block 4 row is missingacreages crea eg s for
the following: Civic/Parks Proposed (1.38 acres according to Block 8A final site plan). Greenway Proposed (1.09
acres according to Block 8A final site plan), pen Space Proposed (0.44 acres according to Block 8A final site plan),
and Buffers Proposed (2.97 acres). The Total Greenspace Proposed column is missingacreages creages for Block 4A (2.09
acres according to Block 8A final site plan) and Block 4B (3.07 acres according to Block 8A final site plan). Rev.3:
Comment addressed.
b. The Block Area Summary on Sheet 3 does not include the proposed acreage of Block 4C, please revise. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
c. Under "Land Areas" on Sheet 1, please state the acreage of land within the "development area" as shown in Table 2
on page 6 of the Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The proposed development area of
Blocks 8A and 8B must be filled in on the table on Sheet 3. Please coordinate with the engineer workingon n the
Block 8A site plan to ensure that the figures are correct. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The Development
Area Proposed column is blank for Block 813. please state the acreage. The Block 8 row is missingacreages creages in the
Civic/Parks Proposed column. the Green -way Proposed column, the Open Space proposed column, and the Buffer
Proposed column. The Total Greenspace Proposed Column is missingacreages creages in the Block 8A and 8B rows. Rev.
3: Comment addressed.
d. The "Land Areas" note should also contain the proposed acreage of amenity areas. Rev. 1: Comment not fully
addressed. The 0.20 acre courtyard amenity proposed in Block 8B is classified as "Open Space" under Section 2.4.3
of the COD. The acreage for this feature is currently listed under "Parks/Civic Areas" column on the Block Area
Summary table on Sheet 3. Please revise the table as necessary so that Block 8B amenity area is included in the
total acreage figure provided for Block 8B under the "Open Space" column in the table. Rev. 2: See comment 459
below. Rev.3: Comment addressed. See comment #59 below for further information.
7. [32.5.2 (a)] The land area of all blocks in Brookhill may not be modified more than 15% of the gross land area shown in
Table 2 (page 6) of the Code of Development. Please be aware that the proposed gross land area (20.7 acres) of Block 8A
and 8B is currently modified by 20% (5.1 acres less than the acreage specific in the COD), according to the Total Project
Area on Sheet 1. This is not permitted. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Total area of Block 8 is now listed as 25.52 acres
which complies with the block acreage modification allowances specified in the COD.
a. The "Land Areas" and "Open Space Provided" sections on Sheet 1 do not match the "Total Project Area" on Sheet
1, or the Block Area Summary on Sheet 3, or the Open Space Calculation on Sheet 5. Please revise and comply
with the requirements of Table 2 of the Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Total area of Block
8 is now listed as 25.52 acres which complies with the block acrea¢e modification allowances snecified in the
COD.
8. 132.5.2 (a)] Please amend the watershed note on Sheet 1 to state whether that is a water supply watershed. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
9. [32.5.2 (a)] Prior to final site plan approval and plat approval, please revise the Existing Conditions and all other applicable
drawings where adjacent properties are visible. The correct so that the correct Tax Map Parcel numbers for the Block 3A Ice
Rink and Block 4 apartments may exist by the time of final review and these should be labeled with the correct deed book
and instrument number. Rev. 1: Comment stands_ multiple subdivision applications are still under review. Final site Dlan
will need to be updated with recorded instrument numbers once subdivision plats are approved and recorded. Rev. 2:
Comment still applies. SUB201900117 and SUB201900123 are both under review and will affect Block 8B and the existing
parcel boundaries. Once these plats are approved and recorded, please update the site plan as necessary so all TMP numbers
and boundaries are correct, and parcel acreages/recorded instrument numbers are stated in the labels on each drawing Rev.
3: Comment stands — once SUB201900117 and SUB201900123 are approved and recorded, please update the existing
conditions drawing to ensure that TMP numbers and recorded instrument numbers are stated on the site plan correctly. Rev.
4: Please revise TMP number listed under owner information on Sheet 1. TMP is 46-18E. State the TMP number for the
3
new Block 8B open space parcel recorded with SUB202000043. See comments below for additional information on
SUB202000043. Rev. 5: Comment partially addressed — staff apologizes for the ongoing changes needed to address
this comment. As a result of the new parcels being subdivided, the TMP numbers have again changed. The main
Block 813 parcel is TMP 46-18E2.
Please revise the followine:
- update the owner information and tax map notes on Sheet 1 so that it states the correct TMP number for
the Block 8B parcel (TMP 46-18E2).
10. [32.5.2 (a)] On Sheet 1, please state the Special Use Permit application number that was approved to allow grading activities
in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. The approved application number is SP201500025 and the County approval date was
November 9, 2016. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please add the approved conditions of SP201500025 to the final site plan. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed.
The approved conditions of SP201500025 are not provided as exhibits on the final site plan. Rev. 2: Comment not
fully addressed. The conditions approved with SP201500025 are still missing. Staff have attached the conditions to
this comment letter to be added as exhibits to the final site plan. Rev. 3: Per applicant response, the conditions of
SP201500025 were added to Sheet 3. However, they are not on the plans. Please add the conditions on the next
submittal. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2 (a)] Under Zoning on Sheet 1, please state the Board of Supervisors approval date of November 9, 2016 to the notes
for both SP201500025 and ZMA201500007. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2 (a)] Please amend the Zoning note on Sheet 1 to include all applicable overlay districts. It should state Neighborhood
Model Development District as the primary zoning district. Block 8B also lies within the following overlay districts: EC -
Entrance Corridor Overlay, AIA — Airport Impact Overlay, and Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay Zoning
Districts. Rev. 1: Comment not fullv addressed. Please revise the title of the FH Overlav District. It should state " FH -
Flood Hazard Overlay Zoning District." Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2 (c)] The limits of Managed and Preserved Steep Slopes are not shown on the drawings as stated in the Note on Sheet
1. Please show the limits of these features. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please add labels to all drawings where
the steep slopes overlav district is visible. The slooes are drawn but not labeled on the eradine and drainage drawin. Rev.
2: Comment addressed.
a. Please be aware that all Preserved Steep Slopes areas must be located within open space and need to be shown on
the final site plan and plat. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please add labels to all drawings where the steep
slopes overlay district is visible. The slopes are drawn but not labeled on the grading and drainage drawing. Rev. 2:
Per comment #59 below, please show the Preserved Steep Slopes on the drawing showing the portion of Block 8B
on the west side of Archer Avenue where the proposed open space and future erg enway are located. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
14. 132.5.2 (a)] Please add a note to Sheet 1 titled "Block Classification" with "Neighborhood Density Residential' as the block
type for Block 813, as stipulated by the Brookhill Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2 (b)] The Zoning Administrator and Director of Planning have determined that the proposed use in Block 8B is
considered "Attached Single -Family Dwelling Units" as described in Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2.3 of the Code of Development
and the County Zoning Ordinance. Please amend the "Proposed Use" on Sheet 1 to state "55 Attached Single -Family
Residential Parcels — 110 Total Dwelling Units. See attached email. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please remove the use note on the drawings that states Block 8B is a multi -family condominium. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
16. [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the maximum building footprint permitted on Sheet 1 in accordance with Table 2.3.2.3 on page 18
of the COD. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2 (b)] Please state the minimum and maximum lot sizes permitted in Block 8B in accordance with Section 2.3.2.3 on
page 18 of the Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
18. [32.5.2 (a)] Please amend the setbacks note on Sheet 1. It should state all permitted setbacks (including porches and garages,
as well as the notes column) in accordance with Table 2.3.2.3 from page 18 of the Brookhill Code of Development. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
a. The porches setback figure is incorrect, porches must be setback a minimum of 5' along the front property lines.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Please revise the garage setback figures stated. The exhibit from page 30 of the Code of Development should be
added as an inset to the setbacks note. The garage setbacks are different depending on the road scenario adjacent to
a given lot. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per the note for the garage setback on Sheet 1, Block 813 will
follow scenario 2 from Figure 12 (page 30) of the COD. Please add Figure 12 from the COD as an exhibit to the
plans. In the garage setback note on Sheet 1, reference the page number of the site plan where the exhibit is provided.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2 (a)] The minimum parking requirement calculation note on Sheet 1 is incorrect. Parking must be provided in
accordance with Section 2.9 of the COD, and the garage and driveway exhibit shown on page 30 of the Code of Development.
a. Each single-family lot must have a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces. Since each lot will have two separate
dwelling units, a minimum of 220 parking spaces total are required in Block 8B. There are currently on 36 on -street
parking spaces provided, with a presumed 110 parking spaces (two each lot) on private lots. Please add the additional
parking spaces as required. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2 (b)] Please amend the "Allowable Density" note on Sheet 1. The allowable density for Block 8B is 2-6 dwelling
units/acre. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2 (b)] Please provide a calculation of the proposed units per acre for Block 8B and overall Block 8. The "Proposed
Density" note on sheet 1 does not state this.
a. Please be aware that the du/acre proposed within Block 8B is approximately 15 du/acre as proposed. The Zoning
Administrator has stated that the 110 dwelling units can be constructed in Block 813 as long as the future uses in
Block 8A are not dwelling units. Essentially, the overall density throughout the entirety of Block 8 cannot exceed
the 2-6 unit range. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The initial site plan for Block 8A is proposing to utilize
the Greenspace portion of Block 8 located on the west side of Stella Lane to meet the density requirements associated
with the senior living facility. The Block 8B plans are also proposing to use that Greenspace area in order to make
8B meet the density range specified by the COD. The Greenspace Area can not be counted for calculatingdensity
ensity
within both Block 8A and 8B. Please provide an explanation of the intent moving forward. Otherwise. Block8B
may need to reduce the number of lots if the Greenspace area will be calculated as part of the Block 8A density.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. A variation to the COD is scheduled to go to the Board of Supervisors on
October 16, 2019 to increase the maximum number of dwelling units and density range of Block 8 overall. If this is
approved by the Board. the "Allowable Density" and "Proposed Density" info on Sheet 1 will need to be revised in
accordance with the new allowed density range of Block 8 per the revised COD. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2 (a)] Per Table 2.3.2.3 of the Code of Development, please show the minimum and maximum setback lines locations
across all applicable drawings. Label each setback line as a front, side, comer side, or rear setback and state the dimensions
in the label. Setbacks should be measured from the proposed right-of-way. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The
proposed parcel boundaries are difficult to distinguish on the plans. so staff cannot verifv whether setbacks are met at this
point. Please clearly delineate proposed parcel boundaries so that setbacks can be measured. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2 (n)] Pedestrian crosswalks must be provided at all locations within the site where ramps connect sidewalks on
opposite sides of vehicular travel ways. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Please label the dimensions and surface materials in compliance with the County's design standards. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.2 (n)] Please label and call out the locations of the primary and secondary building entrances to the building in
accordance with the Neighborhood Density Residential block regulations Section 2.2.3 (page 11) of the Code of
Development. Rev.1 Comment addressed.
a. Lots 16-27 and 31-35 do not currently meet the required building entrance locations since they do not front on a
public street or amenity area. Final site plan and plat will not be approved until these lots front on a public street or
an amenity area. Rev.1 Comment addressed.
25. [ZMA201500007] No setbacks lines are shown on Lots 32-37, please revise. Rev. 1: See comment #22 above. Rev. 2:
Comment not longer applies. No individual lots are proposed.
26. 132.5.2 (a)] Block 8B must provide the minimum recreation area and facilities specified in Section 4.16 of the Zoning
Ordinance. State the equipment for the playground area as well as what kind of sport court is being proposed. Show the
materials and dimensions. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
27. [32.5.2 (k)] Please show the location of all proposed sewer and drainage easements. Label as "proposed" with a size/width
measurement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2 (I)] Please label all utility easements as "proposed" with a size/width measurement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
29. [32.5.2 (n)] Please state the proposed surface materials for all parking lots, travel ways, walkways, etc. in a label on the site
plan drawings. Rev.1 Comment addressed.
30. [COD; 32.5.2(a)] Some retaining wall heights exceed the 6' maximum requirement specified in the COD on pages 23-24.
Please revise. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.5.2 (e)] Please provide more details about the existing landscape features as described in Section 18-32.7.9.4(c).
a. The Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be signed by the owners and provided as an exhibit on the
final site plan for Block 8B. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
32. [32.7.91 The landscaping plan has none of the required information regarding the proposed landscaping, and is not clear. A
detailed landscape plan in accordance with the ordinance is required for final site plan at a scale of 1"=30'. It appears that
required landscaping is located within lots, if so, an easement on those lots will be required. Additional comments will be
given at final site plan once a full landscape plan with more detail is submitted. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
33. 132.7.91 Please provide individual landscaping schedules for required landscaping in accordance with Sections 32.7.9.5,
32.7.9.6, 32.7.9.7, 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Each schedule should state the Botanical Name and Common Name of
each species proposed, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation, and the canopy coverage canopy coverage area
per plant species. The canopy area for each species can be found on the Albemarle County Recommended Plants List and
Albemarle County Plants Canopy Calculations tables. PDFs of these documents can be accessed through the Department of
Community Development webpage: LINK. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
34. [32.7.9.5, and 14-410, and 14-4221 Street trees are not shown along Roads F, E, and Alley A. Please revise the landscaping
plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Street trees are shown along all proposed public and private streets as required by
the COD and Zoning Ordinance.
35. [32.7.9.61 The 9 space parking lot at the south of Block 8B will need to be screened in accordance with Section 32.7.9.6 and
32.7.9.7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff cannot verify if the provided trees meet the minimum 5% canopy requirement. Rev.
1: Comment addressed.
36. [32.7.9.8 (a)] Please provide a calculation for the minimum tree canopy required and proposed in Block 8B based on the
use type. The minimum tree canopy is 20% based on the density of Block 8B. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. [32.7.9.8 (b)] Please provide a landscape schedule that lists the Botanical Name and Common Name of each species
is included, the proposed caliper and height at time of installation, and the canopy coverage area per plant species as
stated on the Albemarle County Plants Canopy Calculations (this table should be specifically for the 20% minimum
tree canopy requirement). Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
37. [32.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Landscape plans stating "All landscaping shall be installed by the first planting season
following the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development." Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
38. [32.7.9.91 Please add a note to the Landscape plans stating "All landscaping and screening shall be maintained in a healthy
condition by the current owner or a property owners' association, and replaced when necessary. Replacement material shall
comply with the approved landscape plan." Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6
39. [32.6.2 (h)] Please provide a signature panel with a line for each member of the Site Review Committee. A copy of the SRC
signature panel template is attached. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
40. IZMA2015000071 Per Proffer #9A-C and Section 2.13 of the Code of Development, the historic marker to commemorate
the Brookhill manor house shall be installed with the first phase of development. The marker is shown in different areas on
the road plans for Block 3 and the Block 813 plans. Please clarify the location. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
41. [ZMA201500007] Notes 1 and 4 on Sheet 1 conflict with what is shown on the plans.
a. Drainage easements and required landscaping buffers (30' Polo Ground Road and the Block 19 buffer) must be
within private easements to be owned and maintained by the Brookhill HOA. These will not be dedicated to public
use, so Note 1 needs to be revised for clarity.
b. Note 4 needs to be revised. If any landscaping required by the Zoning Ordinance will be within open space parcels,
the HOA will maintain those features. All required street trees must be located within public or private road right
of ways. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
42. [14-317] An instrument evidencing maintenance of all required improvements that will not be owned or maintained by the
County is required with the final plat. This includes private street and alley easements, sidewalk easements (if applicable),
buffer easements, landscaping easements (if applicable), etc. Rev. 1: Comment stands. Easements can be created at the time
of final plat review. Rev. 2: Pending review and approval of the subdivision plats currently under review, this comment may
no longer apply since no new streets are being created. Sidewalks, travelways, etc. do not need easements private easements
if located within a private development lot. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
43. [General Comment] 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 that is adjacent to Block 8B. Please see Section 2.4.2
of the Code of Development for the manor house buffer requirements.
a. The Road 1B application (SUB201800115) 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 adjacent to but
outside of the parcel boundaries of Block 19, per Section 2.4.2 and 2.13 of the COD. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Pending applicant response to this comment, western and southern portions of the buffer may need to be shown on
the Block 8B final site plan as required landscaping. 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 buffer easement around 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 addressed. Existing
tree canopy is shown on plans and will be located within open space parcels associated with Block 8B.
Please be aware that prior to final plat approval, and instrument evidencing maintenance of the existing
trees and vegetation within that buffer will need to be provided for review. It will then be recorded with
the plat.
ii. Install each side of the buffer as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or road plan for adjacent blocks, including
Block 8B. The landscaping plan for these applications will specify the types and quantities of vegetation to be
planted in the buffer easement. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
44. [4.17] Please provide a full lighting plan with the final site plan in compliance with Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Per applicant response to the initial comment. porch lights will be installed on each
residential structure. Please add a note to Sheet 1 stating "Lighting — all proposed luminaries will meet the outdoor lighting
standards specified in Section 4.17 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance." Rev. 2: Comment partially addressed. The
requested note has been added, but staff requests final verification that no pole lights are being proposed at this time, and the
only lights within Block 8B will be porch lights on the residential structures? If this is true, please amend the note so that it
states "addition of future lights bevond porch lights will require site plan amendment to comply with Albemarle Countv
Zoning Ordinance." Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
45. [General Comment] The plans label a Day Breach Dam Break Inundation Zone. However, Albemarle County GIS shows
no state dam break inundation zones within the development. Please clarify. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
46. [General Comment] Please revise the Sheet List Table on Sheet 1 to match the sheet numbers provided. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
47. [General Comment] Please see the attached document from the United States Postal Service regarding approval by the
USPS for mail delivery locations. It is up to the applicant to coordinate a centralized mail delivery location for the lots in
Block 8B in accordance with USPS requirements. Staff may ask for written verification from the USPS that a mail delivery
location has been approved by the post master during review of the final plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
New Planning Comments First Review of Block 8B Final Site Plan:
48. [General Comment] Please add a legend to the plans identifying all line types, abbreviations, and other symbology used
on the drawings. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
49. [General Comment] On Sheet 3, please add the approved final site plan application number for Block 4 parcel/area.
This site plan is SDP201800050 and it was approved on December 17, 2018. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
50. [ZMA201500007] Per Table 12 on page 30 of the Code of Development, the driveway parking spaces proposed
throughout the development do not meet the minimum 9' width required. See note 5 from Figure 12. Please revise the
widths of driveway parking spaces accordingly. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
a. Per Table 12 on page 30 of the Code of Development, the driveway parking spaces proposed throughout the
development do not meet the required minimum 18' depth from the rear property line. Parcel boundaries shown
at the rear of each lot have parking spaces measured at 14.' Please revise. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
51. [General Comment] Please update all sheets that show existing easements visible within the extent of these plans.
Existing easements should be labeled with the recorded instrument number for the plat and any applicable easement
deeds of dedication which were recorded separately. This includes the easements created and recorded in the following
instruments:
a. Public Storm Drain Easements, Public SWM Facility Easements, 30' Private Landscape Buffer Easement - DB
5121, pages 644-675. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
b. Private Landscape Buffer Easement Deed of Dedication - DB 5121, pages 689-701. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
c. Public SWM Facility Easements Deed of Dedication — DB 5121, pages 676-688. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
52. [General Comment] Please clearly delineate all proposed parcel boundaries. Rev. 2: Comment stands. Once
SUB201900117 and SUB201900123 are approved and recorded, all parcel lines within the boundaries of the Block 8B
site plan should be updated to match the recorded plats. Labels should include new/revised TMP numbers, acreages,
and recorded instrument number. Rev. 3: Comment stands. Once SUB201900117 and SUB201900123 are approved
and recorded, all parcel labels should be updated with the new/revised TMP numbers, acreages, and recorded instrument
number. Rev. 4: Comment not fully addressed. SUB202000043 has been approved and recorded. That plat created new
Block 8B easements, as well as the new Block 8B open space parcel. The open space parcel is not shown on the revised
site plans, please show the open space parcel boundaries, state the TMP number, and the recorded instrument number.
Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
53. [General Comment] A new easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded for all proposed
easements within Block 8B. Plans will need to be revised accordingly to reflect the instrument numbers for future
easement plats associated with this development. Rev. 2: Comment stands. Rev. 3: Comment stands, no easement plats
for Block 8B have been submitted. Rev. 4: The Block 8B easement plat has been approved, the application number is
SUB202000043. Staff does not have the recordation information for that plat. Please update all applicable drawings that
show easements that were created with the plat, and state the recorded instrument number. For example, that plat created
the 20' historic house buffer within the new open space parcel mentioned in comment #52 above, but that easement isn't
shown on the site plan. Please revise. Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
54. [ZMA201500007] See Engineering Division comments. Some retaining walls exceed the maximum 600' length allowed
by the COD. Please revise the plans as necessary. If walls cannot be shortened, a variation to the COD will be needed
prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
55. [General Comment] Please provide acreages of each buffer area proposed in Block 8B. This includes the acreage of
the buffer around Block 19, and the segment of the 30' polo grounds road buffer at the south end of Block 8B. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
56. IZMA2015000071 The site plans shows that the segment of the 30' Polo Grounds Road buffer within Block 8B is not
currently wooded and the existing tree line does not extend into the buffer. Per the COD, the buffer needs to be replanted
with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning.
Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. There is still a 240' segment of the buffer that does not contain existing trees.
The landscape plans do not show new plantings in this portion of the buffer. Please revise the plans accordingly to
comply with the COD. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
a. Please revise the landscape plans to show installation of new landscaping within the buffer. Rev. 2: Please add
additional plantings where missing in the buffer. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
b. Update the tables on the landscape plans to show the types, sizes, and quantities of each vegetation type proposed
within the buffer. Rev. 2: Comment stands, update as necessary once landscape plans are revised. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
c. The calculations for proposed overall tree canopy will also need to be revised once this landscaping material is
added to the plans. Rev. 2: Comment stands, update as necessary once landscape plans are revised. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
57. [ZMA201500007] Please revise existing conditions where "Proposed Route 29 and Polo Grounds Road Buffer Area" is
labeled. The buffer easements created by the plat recorded in DB 5121, pages 644-675 already exist and their areas
should be classified as "buffer" acreage in the Block Area Summary table. All other open space areas should be classified
as "Open Space" in the Block Area Summary table.
a. Please revise the lines of the Proposed Route 29 and Polo Grounds Road Buffer Area so that the existing buffer
easements are shown as separate items, and the remaining open space is labeled as "Open Space" with an acreage
figure. Rev. 2: Once the exhibit is provided as requested in comment #59, staff will verify that the buffers, open
space, and future erg enway areas within Block 8B comply with COD requirements and the Application Plan.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
b. Revise the Block Area Summary table as necessary. Rev. 2: Once the exhibit is provided as requested in
comment #59, staff will verify that the buffers, open space, and future erg enway areas within Block 8B comply
with COD requirements and the Application Plan. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
58. [General Comment] On Sheet 1, the "Open Space Provided" line states that 13.217 acres is being provided in Block
8B. Is this supposed to state "Total Greenspace Provided?" The acreages do not match the table on Sheet 3. As a
reminder, "Greenspace" is the term used by the COD for all buffers, civic/parks, greenways, and open space areas
provided within the development. Please revise the wording as necessary. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
a. Make sure the acreage figures states on sheet 1 match the table on Sheet 3. Sheet 3 states that Based on the
acreages listed in the Sheet 3 table, it appears that 15.127 total acres of Greenspace will be provided with Block
8B. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
59. [ZMA201500007] Per Section 2.4 (page 18) of the COD, all of the required greenspace areas in Brookhill "Shall be
located outside of private lots and right-of-way. All of the Greenspace within Brookhill, with the exception of the
greenway, will be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association." Since the time of the Block 8B initial site
plan approval, it has been determined that this means that any land being used to count toward meeting the minimum
required open space, buffer, and parks/civic space acreages needs to be subdivided as separate parcels and ownership
transferred to the HOA.
a. The open space areas and buffers shown on the final site plan will need to be platted as separate lots that will be
transferred to the HOA. Please submit a subdivision plat to create these parcels. This includes proposed open
space that will be located on the opposite side of Archer Avenue near the future Greenway area in Block 8
(currently being counted as part of Block 813). Rev. 3: Per applicant response letter, a subdivision plat is being
prepared and will be submitted to the County to create the new parcels and establish HOA covenants. Once the
application and covenants are approved and recorded, this comment will be addressed. Rev. 4: HOA covenants
were recorded in Deed Book 5259, page 669, supplemented in Deed Book 5366, page 528, and then
supplemented again with new covenants approved/recorded with SUB202000043. Please add a note to Sheet 1
stating all three recorded instrument numbers for the HOA covenants. Rev. 5: Comment not fully addressed.
The note on Sheet 1 needs to state the recorded instrument number for the supplemental declarations that
apply to this block Staff has attached a copy of the HOA covenants that were submitted for review by
the applicant of SUB202000043. Please verify with the property owner and their attorneys whether those
covenants were recorded. If they were recorded, please state the recorded instrument number in the note
on Sheet 1.
b. HOA covenants will need to be established at this point. These covenants will need to be submitted with the
subdivision plat and reviewed by the County for compliance with the COD of ZMA201500007 and proffers of
ZMA201800011. Rev. 3: Per applicant response letter, a subdivision plat is being prepared and will be submitted
to the County to create the new parcels and establish HOA covenants. Once the application and covenants are
approved and recorded, this comment will be addressed. Rev. 4: HOA covenants were recorded in Deed Book
5259, page 669, supplemented in Deed Book 5366, page 528, and then supplemented again with new covenants
approved/recorded with SUB202000043. Please add a note to Sheet 1 stating_ all three recorded instrument
numbers for the HOA covenants. Rev. 5: Comment not fully addressed. The note on Sheet 1 needs to state
the recorded instrument number for the supplemental declarations that apply to this block Staff has
attached a copy of the HOA covenants that were submitted for review by the applicant of SUB202000043.
Please verify with the property owner and their attorneys whether those covenants were recorded. If they
were recorded, please state the recorded instrument number in the note on Sheet 1.
c. The 0.20 acre courtyard in Block 8B should not be counted toward meeting the minimum open space
requirements of the COD. The internal travel ways serving the multifamily units would cross into the open
space parcel of Block 8B. Therefore, the table on Sheet 3 will need to be updated so that the 0.20 acre courtyard
is not counted in the "Open Space Proposed" column. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
d. The Open Space Provided line on Sheet 1 will need to be update so that the acreage stated does not count the
0.20 acre courtyard. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
e. Since the time of the initial site plan approval, it appears that the developer has decided to count the future
Greenway Area and open space areas on the west side of Archer Avenue as part of Block 8B's development.
Please provide a drawing in the final site plan that shows the proposed open space, and proposed greenway areas.
As a reminder of Section 2.4.1 of the COD (page 18), the Greenway "encompasses the land within the 100 foot
stream buffer along the perennial streams and wetlands and all land located within the floodplain." Currently,
this portion of Block 8B is not shown on the Layout plans (Sheets 3 and 4) of the final site plan. The site plan
should label the environmental features that are classified as parts of the Greenway. The greenway can be
labeled "Future Greenway to be dedicated to Albemarle County per ZNIA201800011 proffers." Rev. 3:
Comment mostly addressed. However there is a label and leader for the limits of the regr enway on Sheet 4 that
is pointing to the stream buffer boundary line. Please extend the length of the leader so that it is clearly
identifying the line type used for the proposed greenway. Additionally, please revise the label language so that
it states "Future Greenway to be dedicated to Albemarle Countyper ZMA201800011 proffers." Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
60. [ZMA201800011] The Brookhill proffer amendment ZMA, ZMA201800011, was approved by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors on July 17, 2019. These proffers replaced those from ZMA201500007. Rev. 3: Comment
addressed.
a. On Sheet 1, please state the correct ZMA number and Board approval date for the proffers in the Zoning note.
b. On sheets lA/1B please replace the ZMA20150007 proffer list with the approved proffers from
ZNIA201800011. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
c. The Code of Development and Application Plan from ZMA201500007 are still valid and apply to the Brookhill
project. State this in the Zoning note on Sheet 1. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
61. [General Comment] Since time of initial site plan approval, Block 8B is now being proposed as a multifamily
development. On all applicable drawings, remove labels calling out "Limits of Public R/W" for Wesley Circle. Remove
the labels over top of proposed buildings that mention lot numbers — all proposed structures will be located within the
same TMP. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
62. [General Comment] A Certificate of Appropriateness must be approved by the ARB prior to final site plan approval.
Staff is aware that ARB2020000012 has been submitted. Final site plan must comply with final ARB plans. Rev. 4:
Comment stands, see attached ARB comments. Rev. 5: Comment addressed, see attached ARB approval.
10
Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blanig Ile@albemarle.org or 296-
5832 ext. 3432 for further information.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — Emily Cox, ecox@albemarle.org—No objection, see attached.
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board) — Margaret Maliszewski,
mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org — Approved, see attached.
Albemarle County Service Authority —Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org —No objection, see attached.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore, Adam.Moore@vdot.vir ig nia. gov — Review not yet complete,
comments or approvals will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
11
Review Comments for SDP201900015 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: BROOKHILL - BLOCK 8B - FINAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Emily Cox CDD Enaineerino No Objection
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 06/01 /2021
Review Comments for SDP201900015 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: BROOKHILL- BLOCK 8B - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, April 15, 2021 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Approved
Page: 1 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 06/01 /2021
Review Comments for
SDP201900015
Final Site Development Plan
Project Name:
BROOKHILL- BLOCK 8B - FINAL
Date Completed: Monday, May 17, 2021
Department/Division/Agency:
Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson
ACSA
Administrative Approval
I recommend this site plan for approval.
Thanks,
Richard Nelson
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(434)977-4511
Page:
1� County of Albemarle
Printed On: 06/01 /2021
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
May 19, 2021
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Cameron Langille
Re: Brookhill Block 8B — Final Site Plan
SDP-2019-00015
Review #4
Dear Mr. Langille:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated 11
March 2019, last revised 19 April 2021, and find the plan generally acceptable.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9399.
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