HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900015 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-04-250
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins, P.E. (scott&collins-en ine eering com)
From: Cameron Langille — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: April 25, 2019
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.
b. [14-410 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.
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.
d. Please label all roads visible on Block 8B 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.
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. [ZMA201500007] 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 Brookhdl, 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 (500th)
Permit for a dwelling within the Project, the Owner shall dedicate to the County an casement 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 areab lying adjacent to the
Greenway: provided however, that (honer may reserve in such easements. 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 Giveaway. 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. IZMA2015000071 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.
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 working on
the Block 8A site plan to ensure that the figures are correct.
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.
7. 132.5.2 (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 acreage modification allowances specified in the
COD.
8. [32.5.2 (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
plan will need to be updated with recorded instrument numbers once subdivision plats are approved and recorded.
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.
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 fully addressed. Please revise the title of the FH Overlay District. It should state "
FH -Flood Hazard Overlay Zoning District."
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 overlay district is visible. The slopes are drawn but not labeled on the grading and drainage
drawing.
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.
14. 132.5.2 (a)1 Please add a note to Sheet 1 titled "Block Classification" with "Neighborhood Density Residential" as the block
type for Block 8B, 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.
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 8B
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.
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. 132.5.2 (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 8B 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 calculating density 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.
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
uroDosed 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.
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
4
an amenity area. Rev.1 Comment addressed.
25. [ZM4,201500007] No setbacks lines are shown on Lots 32-37, please revise. Rev. 1: See comment #22 above.
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. 132.7.91 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 F=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. [32.7.91 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
5
comply with the approved landscape plan." Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
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. [ZMA201500007] 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. IZNIA2015000071 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.
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 113 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 fullv 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 Countv Zoning Ordinance."
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
6
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
b. 30' Private Landscape Buffer Easement Deed of Dedication - DB 5121, pages 689-701
c. Public SWM Facility Easements Deed of Dedication— DB 5121, pages 676-688.
52. [General Comment] Please clearly delineate all proposed parcel boundaries.
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.
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.
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.
56. [ZMA201500007] The site plans show that the segment of the 30' Polo Grounds Road buffer within Block 8B is not
currently wooded and the existing treeline 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.
a. Please revise the landscape plans to show installation of new landscaping within the buffer.
b. Update the tables on the landscape plans to show the types, sizes, and quantities of each vegetation type proposed
within the buffer.
c. The calculations for proposed overall tree canopy will also need to be revised once this landscaping material is
added to the plans.
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 Black 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.
b. Revise the Block Area Summary table as necessary.
Please contact Cameron Langille at the Department of Community Development at blanig Ilegalbemarle.org or 296-
5832 ext. 3432 for further information.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — Emily Cox, ecoxanalbemarle.org— Requested Changes, see
attached.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) —Andy Slack, aslackkalbemarle.org — No Objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — Requested Changes, see
attached.
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board) — Heather McMahon, hmcmahongalbemarle.org
— Requested Changes, see attached.
Albemarle County Service Authority — Alex Morrison, amorrison@serviceauthority.org — Requested changes, see
attached.
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox, smaddox@albemarle.org — Requested Changes, see
attached.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore, Adam.Mooregvdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested changes, see
attached.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Cameron Langille
From: Emily Cox
Date: 17 April 2019
Subject: Brookhill Block 8B - FSP (SDP201900015)
The final site plan for Brookhill Block 8B has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments
will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
2. Road Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
3. Final design of retaining walls must be provided before final site plan can be approved.
4. Per the code of development Section 2.7, approval must be obtained to have retaining
walls over 600 ft in length.
5. Please remove road profiles and detail sheets. Those should be submitted with the road
plans.
6. Please remove existing 100' WPO buffer labels. It is a proposed greenway per the
approved ZMA.
7. Provide note explaining that existing conditions are based on approved plans and may not
match the current, existing topography/layout on site.
8. Ensure road plans are revised to match this plan. Note says entrance and right-of-way to be
removed in certain areas.
9. Slopes steeper than 3:1 must specify landscaping that can withstand steep slopes.
10. How will the buffer along Polo Ground Road be planted? There are 2:1 slopes adjacent to
stella lane and there is a SWM facility.
11. Do sidewalks outside of the right-of-way have easements or maintenance agreements?
12. Sidewalks abutting parking should be 6' wide.(near Wesley and Noush Court abutting the
courtyard).
13. Please specify where roof drains will tie-in.
14. Sheet 5 labels a ditch behind the retaining wall. Please provide design for this ditch.
15. 12" pipes between yard inlets have very steep slope, almost 20%. Provide information
showing this slope is allowable. Will they be anchored?
16. What is the plan/detail for the driveway aprons?
Review Comments for SDP201900015 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name I BROOKHILL - BLOCK 8B - FINAL
Date Completed: Friday, April 05, 2019 DepartrnentlDivision/Agency Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger 0 CDD Inspections rSee Recommendadons
As noted on previous reviews. Other than this, no objection.
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require an
stamped engineered design also.
Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by the
buildng department.
Note to developer:
Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, undergound propane tanks may be prohibited.
Plan accordingly.
Page: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 04/24/ 0019
Cameron Langille
From: Heather McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 3:03 PM
To: Cameron Langille
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201900015 BROOKHILL - BLOCK 8B - FINAL.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = SDP201900015
Reviewer = Heather McMahon
Review Status = See Recommendations
Completed Date = 04/09/2019
This email was sent from County View Production.
In County View:
A Certificate of Approrpriateness if required prior to Final Site Plan approval. The applicant must submit an ARB
application and associated fee for Final Site Plan review.
As a courtesy, I have provided the comments provided of the Initial Site Plan Review below:
This item was placed on the CONSENT AGENDA of the 8-20-18 ARB meeting.
Motion to Approve Consent Agenda:
Motion: Mr. Binsted moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations outlined in the staff
reports for the Initial Site Plans to the Agent for the Site Review Committee, as follows.
a. ARB-2018-102: Brookhill Block 8B— Initial Site Development Plan (TM/Parcel 04600000001800)
Proposal: To develop Block 8B with 55 lots for multi -family attached dwellings (110 units grouped into 11 buildings) and
associated improvements on a 7.18-acre, L-shaped site.
Location: East side of Seminole Trail (Rt. 29 N) and north side of Polo Grounds Road (Rt. 643). Forest Lakes Community is
to the north and Montgomery Ridge is to the east.
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended
conditions of initial plan approval:
1. None. Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
• Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: None.
• Regarding the final site plan submittal:
1. Architecture and landscaping will be reviewed with a future submittal. A Certificate of Appropriateness is
required prior to final site plan approval.
2. Provide site sections of Block 8B from the EC to determine visibility of the proposed buildings and site
structures.
3. Submit material and color samples, dimensioned elevations of the fa4ades, and floor plans of the attached
multi -family buildings on lots 1-15 and 38-55 for review.
4. Provide the standard window glass note on the architectural elevations submitted for review: Window glass in
the Entrance Corridors should meet the following criteria: Visible light transmittance (VLT) shall not drop below 40%.
Visible light reflectance (VLR) shall not exceed 30%.
5. Provide a roof plan and architectural elevations that show the placement and proposed heights of mechanical
units, if roof -mounted mechanical equipment is proposed. Show how all visibility of mechanical equipment from the EC
will be eliminated.
6. If above -ground utilities are proposed, provide these and their easements on revised site plans.
7. Include the mechanical equipment note on the revised site plans and architectural drawings: Visibility of all
mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.
8. Provide in the site plan sufficient details to show that all proposed light fixtures meet the requirements of the
lighting ordinance.
9. Provide a landscape plan for review at a scale of 1" = 30'. Include utilities and their easements on the plan, as
well as a plant schedule.
10. Provide street trees on the east and south sides of Road E/Wesley Circle.
11. Provide shade trees on the eastern edge of the site around the four parking spaces.
12. Provide the standard plant health note on all landscape plans submitted for review: All site plantings of trees
and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant.
Thanks,
Heather McMahon, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3278
hmcmahon@albemarle.org
Cameron Langille
From:
Alexander Morrison <amorrison @serviceauthority.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:47 AM
To:
Cameron Langille
Cc:
Richard Nelson
Subject:
Brookhill Block 8B
Cameron,
I do not have the SDP number for the final site plan but I wanted to let you know that it is currently under construction
plan review by the ACSA.
AlexanderJ. Morrison, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
6 1]®
Review Comments for SDP201900015 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: BROOKHILL - BLOCK 8B - FINAL
Date Completed: Thursday, March 21, 2019 DepartmentlDivision/Agency Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Fire Rescue Requested Changes
ide of each building must
o longer pertains.
Pape: 1� County of Albemarle
Printed On: 04/24/ 0019
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
April 19, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Megan Nedostup
Re: Brookhill Block 8B — Final Site Plan
SDP-2019-00015
Review #1
Dear Ms. Nedostup:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated 1 I
March 2019, and offers the following comments:
1. The initial site plan and preliminary plat proposed all private streets within the
development; therefore, comments on the internal streets were not provided in our review
of these plans, with the exception of the proposed entrance on to Salamander Street
(Public) which has been removed on the final site plan.
2. The proposed intersection of Wesley Circle and Wesley Lane is not an acceptable public
street intersection. An intersection cannot be used to avoid a curve. The intent of the
SSAR is to accept networks of streets; this proposal does not have intuitive endpoints for
public maintenance.
3. Noush Court does not meet comer clearance requirements if Wesley Circle is to be a
public street.
4. A public street must have an acceptable turnaround, see Appendix F, at their terminus.
5. Marked crosswalks do not appear warranted within this development and should be
removed. Note that the Department will not maintain unwarranted marked crosswalks.
If further information is desired, please contact Justin Deel 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. M e, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING