Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200058 Correspondence 2022-09-27® COLLINS ENGINEERING September 9, 2022 Cameron Langille Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Brookhill Blocks 16 & 17— Final Site plan 200 GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 ��434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.coll ns-eng ineeri ng.com Attached is the final site plan for Brookhill Block 16 & 17. Below is how the initial site plan comments for the project have been addressed. Planning (Cameron Langille): 1. Block 17 will contain a civic space and Block 18 will contain a civic space. Together, these spaces will exceed the minimum requirements for the public civic areas as outlined in the COD for Brookhill. The final site plan includes the amenities proposed within is recreational open space and meeting area within Block 17. Sheet 6 labels this area, the cover sheet outlines the amenities and the total recreational area, and Sheet 14 details the tot lot amenities. 2. The comment about the SO' pedestrian pathway has been addressed as follows: a. The multi -purpose trail along the frontage of Block 17 has been shown on sheet 5 and labeled. The surface material has been included in the label, and a detail has been included on sheet 14. b. The pathway has been shown extending to the property line of the Brookhill Development. The developer has been working with the Montgomery Ridge HOA to secure the easements to extend the trailway to their entrance. See attached correspondence. They are working on the easement agreements, but the HOA has not yet provided the easement for the work to be extended. This should happen within the next 6-9 months. 3. The road sections within Blocks 16 and 17 allow for parking on one side of the roadways, which is consistent with the COD. The road sections, which have been approved by VDOT, are shown on Sheet 14. The on -street parking is shown on Sheets 5, 6 and 7 with a car symbol and labeled. These spaces are outside of the site distance easements and outside of the driveway openings. The spaces will not be striped, as noted on the plans and on the road cross sections. 4. The comments on the block plan have been addressed. Specifically, see below: a. The tables have been updated and coordinated with the plans and plats for Blocks 16, 17 and 18. The final site plan for block 16 and 17 now matches the plats as well. The overall block area (phasing line) for blocks 16 and 17 do include some of the greenway, that is now on a separate parcel. This has been updated and noted accordingly on the cover sheet for the project areas and acreages and the block plan matches these acreages. b. The block plan has been updated in numerous locations to include updates on the submittals and approvals of initial site plans, road plans, and final site plans. c. All the parcel and boundary lines have been updated to match the recent plat approvals. TMP numbers have been updated along with the instrument numbers. 5. The proposed footprints of the units have been revised and updated. The porches extend a minimum of 3' beyond the front of the garages meeting the relegated parking requirements. 6. The proposed density has been updated on the cover sheet. It shows the density per acre based on the block acreage and number of units proposed in each block and overall between the (2) blocks. 7. The watershed note has been updated to state that the project is located within a non -water supply watershed area. 8. The existing conditions, sheet 4, and other plan sheets have been updated with the revised property lines, property acreages, owner information, and instrument numbers. 9. The note has been added to sheet 1 for the block classification, neighborhood density residential for blocks 16 and 17. 10. The maximum footprint permitted (10,000 sf) condition has been added to the cover sheet, as requested. 11. The primary and secondary entrances to the units have been labeled on the typical TH and typical Villa unit diagram, shown on sheet 5. 12. The proposed sanitary sewer and drainage easements have been shown and labeled on sheets 8-10 and 11-13. The recorded instrument number has been added to the easement as well. The easements have been labeled accordingly (public/private matching the recorded easement plat) with the width of the easement. 13. All new easements have been labeled on the site plan (sheets 5-7) with the instrument number, width of easement, and whether the easement is public or private (matching the recorded easement plat). 14. The proposed surface material is shown on sheet 14 for the travelways, roadways, driveways, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, etc. 15. The retaining walls have been reviewed and approved as part of the WPO process and road plan process. The site plan shows the retaining walls and these retaining walls are labeled, and meet the requirements of the COD. 16. The information on the existing tree areas within Block 16 and 17 have been added to the existing conditions (Sheet 4) and the landscaping plan, sheet 16. 17. This landscaping comment is acknowledged. 18. The canopy coverage has been provided for Block 16 and 17. A planting schedule has been included on sheet 16 and the total landscaping chart has been provided on sheet 17, including the caliper, canopy, planting height, etc. 19. More than (1) species of the street trees have been provided. 20. The street trees have been addressed as followed: a. The calculations for the number of required street trees have been shown on sheet 16 and the number of proposed trees. b. Measurements have been added to the plans ensuring 5' separation from the storm pipes and the street trees. 21. The minimum canopy has been listed for Block 16 and 17 and the development is providing a minimum of 20% canopy as required. The minimum canopy calculations have been shown on the plans and additional landscaping has been added to meet the required landscaping. 22. This note has been added to the landscaping plans. 23. This note has been added to the landscaping plans. 24. The signature panel has been updated, as requested. 25. The easement plat for this project has been approved and recorded. The instrument numbers have been added to the plans sheets. 26. A WPO plan has been approved for this project. 27. The lighting note on the cover sheet has been updated. There are no street lights proposed. All porch lights shall emit light less than 3,000 lumens. 28. The road plans for Block 16 and 17 have been approved and are currently being bonded. 29. The federal inundation zones are shown on the existing conditions sheet 4. Engineering (Emily Cox): 1. The road plans for Block 16 and 17 have been approved. The easement plat for Blocks 16 and 17 have been approved. The subdivision plat are under review for approvals. 2. The final site plan is under review for approval, along with the subdivision plat. Since a preliminary plat and an initial site plan were both approved with this project, I think the subdivision plat can be approved prior to the final site plan, and site plan approval is not required for the recordation of the subdivision plat. It the preliminary subdivision plat was not approved for the project, then yes the site plan would need to be approved first. 3. The easement plat has been approved and recorded. The instrument numbers have been added to the easements shown on the final site plan, and the information has been coordinated with the easement plat. 4. All the recorded instrument numbers for the easements have been added to the site plan. 5. The public road right of way widths have been labeled and dimensioned on the plans. 6. The engineered retaining wall applications are currently under review at the County. 7. Spot shots have been added to the grading plan to show positive drainage away from the houses for a minimum of 10'. 8. Roof connections have been labeled and splash block notations have been added to the plan set with the splash block detail. 9. Trees outside the right of way and outside of open spaces (on lots) have been located within an easement, like the 2 street trees on Lot 111. The trees along Halsey are located within a buffer area, which will also be an easement. And, street trees can be outside of the right of way and within open spaces and do not need landscaping or maintenance easements. ARB: It is acknowledged these blocks are not within the Entrance corridor Building Inspections : It is acknowledged that underground propone tanks may be prohibited based on required lot lines and structures Fire/Rescue : The construction fire prevention notes have been added to sheet 5. ACSA : 1. The utility plan has been reviewed and approved with the road plans for the development. 2. The approved infrastructure is shown and noted on this site plan. 3. A flow request has been approved by RWSA for the proposed units within Block 16 and 17. This includes these SFA units on this site plan. These were included with the initial request for a flow acceptance with the utility plans for this section of Brookhill. VDOT: The road infrastructure for this project has been approved with the road plans for Brookhill, Block 16 and 17. The approved information has been included with this site plan and noted that it has been reviewed and approved with the Brookhill Block 16 and 17 Road plans. This site plan does not change any of the approved aspects of the Brookhill Block 16/17 road plans. E911: No objection RWSA: RWSA has approved a flow request for all of Block 16 and 17, which included these SFA TH and Villa units. The layout and demands for the Brookhill Development (Block 16/17) are not changing with this site plan request. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Scott Collins at scottPcollins-eneineerine.com. Sincerely, n Scott Collins, PE Scott Collins To: Alan Taylor, Mark Marshall; Joe Simpson Subject: RE: Montgomery Ridge - RW and trail -----Original Message ----- From: Mark Marshall <mark@realpropertyinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 4:56 PM To: Joe Simpson <simpson@atlasconstructionmanagement.com> Cc: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>; Alan Taylor <alan@riverbenddev.com> Subject: RE: Montgomery Ridge - RW and trail Hey, Joe - Ball is still in their court for the easement. They engaged with an attorney to draft it. During that process it was determined that the walks would fall in the ROW for VDOT and they would likely be a party to the easement. We've reached out to VDOT, still waiting. I will follow backup with them tomorrow. -Mark -----Original Message ----- From: Joseph Simpson <simpson@atlasconstructionmanagement.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 4:26 PM To: Mark Marshall <mark@realpropertyinc.com> Cc: Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com>; Alan Taylor <alan@riverbenddev.com> Subject: Montgomery Ridge - RW and trail Hi Mark, Last time we spoke, Montgomery Ridge wanted us to extend our walking trail to their entrance. I believe it was in their court to draft an easement plat and dedicate R/W for this trail as well as give us permission for us to build the trail. Car you check on that? Let me know if this how you remember that conversation. I can't find our old emails on this topic but it came up in our conversation today and I wanted to make sure 1) this is what everyone agrees to on this topic and 2) see where Montgomery Ridge is with regards to creating the easement documents. Joe