The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202100026 Correspondence 2022-09-16LwD.SCAPEARa1RECNRE URMNDESMvV LAND FUNNING CAMPUS PLAmm & DESIGN PMKP. NINGBDESIGN ANHOLD ASSOCIATES September 16, 2022 Project: SDP202100026 Brook Hill River Park Phase 1 River Access Improvements Subject: A/E Responses to Final Site Plan review comments. Submitted by: David Anhold, PLA, ASLA Review Comments By: Division: Date: Kevin McCollum — Planner Planning Services May 7, 2021 10. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Additionally, because the subject property is within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, this proposed project (including the Lighting Plan, as may be applicable) is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and ARB staff, and approval/issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the ARB is required. Response: ARB Application was submitted by applicant. 12. Please note that the following approvals will be required prior to County approval (as may be applicable) of a final site plan for this proposed project: A. [Z.O. Sections 32.4.2.2 and 32.4.3.31: Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness B. [Z.O. Section 32.7.4.1(a)]: Water Protection Ordinance Plan (and corresponding legal documents) C. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.4.2 and 32.7.5.3]: Easement Plat(s) (and corresponding legal documents) D. [Z.O. Section 32.4.3.6(a) and 32.4.3.6(c)]: Tentative approvals (review status of "No Objection") from all applicable SRC members for final site plan; please see below for the review status of each applicable SRC member. Response: Will comply with all submission and comments. 13. [32.5.2(a)] Please update the site plan application number in the title to SDP202100026. If you would like to include a reference to the initial site plan (SDP201900080) please do so in the revisions box on the bottom right side of the sheets. Response: The application number was updated on the plans. 14. [32.6.2(j) and 32.7.91 The following issues were identified during review of the Landscape Plan, and must be addressed and resolved prior to final site plan approval. A. [32.7.9.51 Please provide street trees within the project area along Rio Mills Rd. Z.O. 32.7.9.5(d) states One large street tree shall be required for every 50 feet of street frontage, 8311 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Greenwood, Virginia 22943 434.882.3420 ANHOLDLA.COM ANHOLD ASSOCIATES Page 2 or portion thereof, if 25 feet or more. Where permitted, one medium shade tree shall be required for every 40 feet of road frontage, or portion thereof, if 20 feet or more. Response: Due to the existing utility poles, guy wires, low hanging power lines, & easement there is not adequate room for the required street trees. As a substitute, three small trees have been planted in the northeastern corner of the property along the frontage & large existing canopy trees are being preserved along the frontage to the west. B. [32.7.9.9(c)] Please include the following note on Sheet L101: 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 (Z.O. 32.7.9.9(c)). Response: Note added. See Landscape and Calculation Note #5 on L-110. C. [32.7.9.61 Please specify the "Parking Area Landscaping' calculation. It is currently listed as"1000+ SF." Response: Parking Area Landscape Calculation is added. See Note #2 on L-110 D. Please provide additional information in regard to the "Perimeter trees required" on Sheet L-110. Albemarle County does not have perimeter tree requirements, are these supposed to be screening trees? Response: Perimeter Tree Calculation was deleted. E. [32.7.9.61 Specify the total trees provided on Sheet L-110. Response: Total trees provided is shown on the Planting Schedule. F. Please update the Planting Schedule on Sheet L-110 to include a column for tree canopy and the total provided tree canopy. Please see the Plant Canopy Calculation resource below. https://www.albemarle.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=1020 Response: Tree canopy calculation was added to the Planting Schedule. 15. [4.12.19 and 32.7.9] Please provide a construction detail in plan and profile view for the trash receptacle and enclosure around it. Provide dimensions, construction materials, etc. ARB may have more comments regarding the design of the screening proposed for the dumpster. Response: A dumpster is not being proposed for the project. The site plan shows 55-gallon trash cans that will be provided and installed by the Parks Department. These trash cans are used at all of the County Parks and should not require screening. 16. [4.2.3 and 4.2.5] Disturbance of critical slopes is shown on the plan. Per Section 4.2.3 (b), "no structure, improvement, land disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement, or placement of clean earth fill or inert waste fill shall be located on critical or preserved slopes except as otherwise permitted under sections 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.3.1 and 30.7.4." Unless ANHOLD ASSOCIATES Page 3 this disturbance is permitted in accordance with Section 4.3.1, disturbance of critical slopes requires a Special Exception application to be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to final site plan approval. See Section 4.2.5 (a)(3) for the specific findings that must be met in order for staff to recommend approval of critical slopes waivers. Response: Based on further discussion with County Plan Review Staff, Brook Hill River Park is exempt from the Critical Slopes regs contained in Section 4 based on Zoning Ordinance Section 4.2.6(c) and as a result not subject to the modification or waiver requirements contained in Section 4.2.5. 17. [32.7.8 and 4.151 It appears there is a sign in the VDOT right of way on Sheet C-300. All signs shall comply with the requirements of, and shall be subject to approval as provided in, section 4.15. Is this a new sign or an existing sign? Response: This is an existing Park sign that will be removed. It will be re -installed by Parks once the site construction is complete and the park is reopened. 18. The "Limits of Project' callout points to a boundary that does not match the actual TMP parcel boundaries. Is this intended to indicate that land is being dedicated to right-of-way? Please also clarify if any off -site construction easements are needed. Off -site construction easements must be platted prior to final site plan approval. Further comments on this matter may be forthcoming pending applicant response. Response: The Limits of Project was revised to address comment concerns. No land is being dedicated to right-of-way. Obviously, some construction will be required in the adjacent VDOT right-of-way. The Owner and Contractor will obtain the property VDOT permits prior to any work in the ROW. Review Comments By: Khristopher Taggart Division: Architectural Review Board Date: May 7, 2021 The non-standard tree sizes and arrangement are acceptable given the context of the site, but because the existing wooded area in the r-o-w allows for visibility into the site during the months when leaves are not on the trees: 1. Planting similar to that near the northeast corner of the site should be continued south to the round -about to the greatest extent possible. Response: Parks Staff feels the existing thick vegetation along the Rt. 29 south road embankment along with the proposed meadow and tree plantings provide adequate screening and that additional plantings along the gravel drive are not required. 2. Add screening for the portable toilet. Response: Portable toilet screening was added to the plans. ANHOLD ASSOCIATES Page 4 Review Comments By: Margaret Maliszewski Division: Historic Preservation Date: May 7, 2021 Given the Planning Commission's August 14, 2018 action on CCP2018-2, please revise General Information note #9 to read, "Future phases of the park must include....." Response: General Information Note #9 on sheet G-001 was revised as directed. Review Comments By: Mr. Adam Moore, PE Division: VDOT— CharlottesvilleResidency Date: April 19, 2021 1. The entrance design will need to be a combination of two RDM details due to CG-6 on the East as shown in F-109 and shoulder on the West as shown in F-108. Response: The entrance deign was adjusted as requested. CG-6 and a sidewalk were added to the eastern side of the entrance and connect to existing improvements at the Rt. 29 south intersection.