HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300035 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2014-09-14Short Review Comments Report for:
SDP201300035
SubApplication Type:
BRIARWOOD - MINOR
Minor Amendment
Date Completed:07/02/2013
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/03/2013
Reviewer:Michelle Roberge CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/02/2013
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/18/2013
Reviewer:Sarah Baldwin CDD Zoning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Andy reviewed the Site Plan amendment due to the variations on the site w/ regard to the
landscaping and provided a comment that ARB review will be a major portion of the review guidance
that Zoning and Planning shall follow. - CPP
Division:
Date Completed:06/27/2014
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/24/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/23/2014
Reviewer:Michelle Roberge CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:As of 6-23-14, this plan has been transfered to John Anderson as Michelle went into labor and had
her baby.
Division:
Date Completed:07/09/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Applicant re-submitted prior to Engineering preparing comment on 23-Jun-14 received date plans.
[Engineering will not comment on #2 submittal]
Division:
Date Completed:07/24/2014
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Revisions to the mitigation plan were submitted on 7-8-14 but then additional relavent informaton was
submitted on 7-21-14 (retaining wall details, which had to be considered as it affects the landscaping.
Thus comments were held 2 days to review the retaining wall details. See attached comments.
Division:
Page:1 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:May 11, 2017
Reviews Comments:Revisions to the mitigation plan were submitted on 7-8-14 but then additional relavent informaton was
submitted on 7-21-14 (retaining wall details, which had to be considered as it affects the landscaping.
Thus comments were held 2 days to review the retaining wall details. See attached comments.
Date Completed:07/09/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Recommendation-
1. Furnish technical or design information (Mfr recommendation, for example) concerning
nearest approach of plantings to Redi-Rock Ledgestone™ gravity retaining walls (Walls 1, 2, 3).
Nearest permissible approach of plantings to a wall of specific type and height adjacent to road and
public sidewalk is required for safety purposes. Please consider life and mortality of evergreen trees,
small flowering trees, and tree species listed in Briarwood Mitigation Plant schedule, sheet 2, 7-Jul
plan set; information may be presented in graphic, table, or narrative form.
Division:
Date Completed:07/24/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/24/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:Sheets 3 and 4 of retaining wall plans dated 7/18/14 show the 6’ space between Walls 1 and 2 is
reduced to 26” for plantings. Defer to Planning on reducing width of planting strip.
Wind-toppled trees’ root systems may pull a wall down. Design must preserve integrity of Wall 3
geogrid system. Mike Circeo (design engineer) affirmed need for setback between trees and Wall 3
(conversation, 22 July 2014). A conservative approach to establish (per species) setbacks uses
canopy area listed in plant schedule (Minor Site Plan Amendment #3) to calculate a radius-distance
for each species. A safety factor of .25 increases distance 25%, from 10’ to 12.5’ as an example.
This approach is in line with design engineer’s experience and recommendation (M. Circeo, 22-Jul).
This wall is immediately adjacent to sidewalk and a high-volume roadway.
Will recommend monitoring (soil samples/test of bearing capacity/inspection) by a qualified
geotechnical representative during construction to help ensure proper outcome.
Division:
Date Completed:08/07/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:1. My June 23 comment letter included the following: “ Comment #11 from our May 19, 2014 letter
stated that interior parking lot trees should be revised to a large species, 2½” caliper at planting. The
2½” caliper change has been made; however, the change to a large species has not. It is
recommended that the serviceberry and redbud at the interior of the parking lot be replaced with a
large tree species. It may be expensive and/or difficult to find serviceberry and redbud at that size.” A
plan with revision date of 6/27/14 was submitted to address my June 23 comments. The serviceberry
and redbud trees were changed to London planetree and sweetgum at the parking lot interior to
address this specific comment. Subsequent submittals have reverted to the earlier version of the plan
with the serviceberry and redbud trees. Please revise the plan to show the planetree and sweetgum
and maintain this revision on the plan.
2. The red maples along Boulderview Road need to be large trees to meet ARB requirements.
Please specify a large cultivar of the Red Maple (for example, Armstrong, Autumn Flame, October
Glory) in the plant schedule..
3. If you’ve made changes that haven’t been asked for, please list and explain.
Division:
Page:2 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:May 11, 2017
Date Completed:08/08/2014
Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:All tree species – deciduous, flowering, and evergreen – meet Wall 3 minimum setback requirement
as calculated using canopy area/radius formula, and applying 1.25 safety factor.
Retaining wall construction Notes, 1.-5. (Final Site Plan, sheet 6, d. 8/7/14, submitted as a courtesy
but as of 9AM, 8/8/14, not yet formally resubmitted), address monitoring and testing relative to
retaining wall construction.
No objection to proposed mitigation plan.
Division:
Date Completed:08/08/2014
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/21/2014
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Plan is approvable pending the special exceptions and the variation are approved by the BOS. The
items are scheduled for the Sept 3rd BOS meeting. Pending results of this meeting prior to approval
of the plan. Will need 4 signed copies from applicant for approval.
Division:
Date Completed:08/13/2014
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:09/04/2014
Reviewer:Christopher Perez CDD Planning
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:3 of 3 County of Albemarle Printed On:May 11, 2017
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Scott Collins
200 Garrett Street, Suite K.
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP2013 -00035 Minor Amendment to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases 1A -1, 1B -1,
4 — 8. (Mitigation Plan 8 -7 -14)
Dear Sir:
Your minor amendment referenced above has been reviewed. In order for the plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
[Comment] The final site plan number which this minor amendment is tied to shall be
referenced on the cover sheet /sheet 1. Revise to provide the following: SDP2013 -00035
Minor Amendment #3 (Mitigation Plan) to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases IA -1,
1B -1, 4 — 8. Also, remove the reference that this is minor amendment #2; as there has
already been an approved minor amendment to this site plan it was SDP2010 -84 and
there is currently an application in our office for Minor Amendment SDP201300034.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
2. [Comment] As noted above this application is slated to be the 3rd minor site plan
amendment for these sections of the development, only 3 are permitted before all
changed need to be incorporated into a major site plan amendment. Please take this into
consideration.
Rev 1. Statement was a reminder to the applicant. Nothing for applicant to address.
[Comment] The proposed changes affect various sheets in the final site plan. Per staff
review it appears changes should also be reflected on the original cover sheet (sheet 1)
and sheets 51, 52, and 53C. Revise to assure all applicable sheets which are being
modified are provided. Per Engineering's comments attached additional sheets may also
need to be revised. Also, assure that all modifications are clouded out on each sheet and
provide numbering to reference each change.
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
4. [Comment] The proposed modifications to TMP 32G -A (landscaping modifications,
grading changes, proposed retaining walls, revised SWM path... etc) will require
additional information/review /and approval by the ARB and Engineering (see
departmental comments attached). ARB and Engineering approval is required prior to
approval of the amendment.
Rev 3. Comment addressed.
[Comment] If any modifications to previously approved ACSA lines or other easements
are part of the proposed changes the easement holders will be required to approve the
proposed changes prior to County approval of the plan.
Rev 1. ACSA approval to be handled on commercial lot subdivision application.
6. [Comment] This minor amendment /mitigation plan will be utilized to process the
Special Exception request for the 20' buffer disturbance per Chapter 18 Section 21.7(c)l.
Prior to scheduling the Special Exception request for action by the BOS the mitigation
plan should be revised per Planning, ARB and Zoning's comments and resubmitted for
review to assure the plan meets County requirements and is appropriate for BOS action.
Rev 3. Mitigation plan approvable, above items to be scheduled for BOS meeting.
7. [NEW COMMENT] The proposal has been revised to include a wooden fence along a
portion of the mitigation area at the rear of the townhome lots. On the plan provide a
detail of the fence for ARB consideration/review. Also, on the plan provide the height of
the fence for staff consideration/review. Also, staff questions why the fence is only
provided for a portion of the mitigation area and not the entire length of the mitigated
area.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
8. [NEW COMMENT] On the plan label all retaining walls in the vicinity of the mitigation
area.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
9. [COMMENT] Please work with ARB to address all landscaping items. Notably,
the mitigated area along the gas station's private road is proposed to be planted with a
predominance of deciduous trees; however, there should be a mix of evergreen and
deciduous with a predominance of evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs as the ordinance
requires for screening. Assure more evergreen plantings meeting Section 32.7.9.7 (C) &
(D) are provided through the mitigation area.
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
10. [COMMENT] The proposal has been modified to provide off site plantings on
TMP 032G0- 1B -02- 07100, owned by Jamila Saleh. Has the owner been contacted with
regard to these plantings? Prior to site plan amendment approval please provide signed
off -site agreements for: temporary grading and landscaping easements from affected
property owner.
Rev 2. Per the revised plans no grading or landscaping is taking place on the
adjacent property owners land.
11. [COMMENT] It appears the proposed private street "Elm Tree Court" has been
relocated to line up with the existing "Elm Tree Court" across Briarwood Drive. The
proposal appears to utilize /consume TMP 032G0- 113- 02- 000130, 0.05 acres of open space
which abuts Jamila Saleh's property. This change in property lines will need to take place
on a subdivision plat/ Boundary Line Adjustment plat, as property lines seem to be
shifting in this area. The revised open space calcs for Briarwood subdivision will need to
be accounted for on the plat.
Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant, and will take place on the final
subdivision plat or a separate boundary line adjustment plat.
Also, in this area the disturbance of the 20' buffer between commercial and residential
zoning requires approval of a waiver/ special exception discussed above in comment #6,
and will need to be approved by the BOS. On the mitigation plan assure that this buffer
is clearly depicted and labeled. Assure that all plans being submitted match (road plans,
subdivision plats, etc).
Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant and a special exception request for this
disturbance was filed with the County on 7- 17 -14. The special exception is being
processed.
12. [NEW COMMENT] A Redi -Rock Retaining Wall detail plan for the site was
provided to the County on 7- 21 -14, the following comment has been generated
through review and consideration of these plans.
Per the design specification for these retaining walls and Engineering's findings in
consultation with Geotechnical Engineer, Michael Circeo, trees shall be setback from the
backface of the retaining wall a minimum distance as calculated using their tree canopy
calculations with a Safety Factor of 25% added to the setback. These setbacks take into
consideration the full growth of trees and root systems and helps to avoid failure of the
wall in the event a tree is blown down by heavy winds. To be clear, the tree setback shall
not be used to substantially reduce the number or type of trees; rather, plantings shall be
rearranged to accommodate the requirements. Utilize the following formula for each
species of tree to determine the required setback. Shrubs do not have a minimum setback
requirement to the wall.
If Canopy Calc of tree is 452 SF, then
452 - 3.1415 = 143.8
Square root of 143.8 =11.99
Include a Safety Factor rating of 25%
11.99 x 1.25 = 14.98
Thus the setback for this tree is 15 feet from backface of retaining wall.
Revise landscaping associated with the retaining walls appropriately.
Rev 3. Comment addressed.
13. [COMMENT] On sheet 2, the plan makes note of "New Storm Drainage Easement DB 4111
PG 521 "; however, when the deed was pulled it appears to truly be an "Existing 20' Sanitary
Sewer Easement owned by ACSA ". Revise the easement label on the plan. Also, I discussed this
easement with Alex Morrison of ACSA and he believes that this portion of that line was
abandoned, but the easement still remains. He suggested that it may be appropriate for the
easement to be vacated on the commercial lot final subdivision plat.
Also, on sheet 2 the plan makes note of "Existing Storm Drainage Easement DB 3833 PG233 ";
however, this easement appears to truly be a 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement owned by ACSA.
Revise the easement label on the plan. Notably this portion of the line was not abandoned and is
still active. Provide documentation from the easement holder that the proposed plantings (shrubs
and trees) are permitted to be planted in the easements. I discussed the plantings permitted in the
easement with Alex Morrison of ACSA, and he made note that shrubs are permitted with the
approval from ACSA but trees are strictly prohibited. Revise landscaping to remove trees from
the ACSA easement.
Rev 3. Comment not addressed. Please label these easements correctly or explain why they
are already correct.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
See comments in Countyview.
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
No objection
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Phone: 434.296.5832 ext. 3443
�OF Ay�
`IRGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
07 -24 -2014
Scott Collins
200 Garrett Street, Suite K.
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP2013 -00035 Minor Amendment to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases IA-1, 1B-1,
4 — 8. (Mitigation Plan)
Dear Sir:
Your minor amendment referenced above has been reviewed. In order for the plan to be
approved the following revisions are required:
1. [Connnenfl 1.he fi:ru i site plain member wti€b. this ini:n€ r an.iemdAneat is tie:c. Lo shall be
ref on the cover shec tishec:t L Revise to provide t:1a loll €� irag: S.DF12f11 � -000 5
Minor ° Amendment H31 (Mitipi io :1'la.u) to
111-1,4.-8. Also, rern ove the relereiace ffi t this is ra:rino:r• aanz€ndy.r ei.it ;:2; as di re has
already l?€xe:ia. earn. aal:�.}�ro�-c:cl. rxrirr €,:�° aaan.a drnent to tia.i.s site plaan :it was 1:;x:11201.0 -8 -4 arld
t: enC is c-Lir:t °ently aarr atplalic,at:ion SD.1:12 01 3llfll1:34,
Rev 2. ("onmment addressed,
2. [ ;onnnent As noted above tliis application. is slated. to be the 3rd minor site phin
amendment f -br these sections of the development.. only..) are permitted. be-fore all
changed need to be inc ar-porat€ d into a, major site. plan take this into
consideration.
Rev 1. Statement was a reminder to the applicant. Nothing for applicant to address.
Y; 1co"Iment 'fie proposed € haange s affect. �,,anoras ire tire: final site plaarl. Per staff
1'e view- it appears. €b angers should also be reflected on the or:igi.nail cover sheet f �. la.e;ext 1. �
aiid sheets 51.:92, and l:zevi.se to assure all. applicable sheets which are being
inodil ie.d. are provided, Per l ngi.neer rig's Comments attached additional she -ets may- also
raced to be r€;vised...A.iso.. aasswe: tlaaat al l inodificaations are Oocrele d out on each sheet and
provide nunibcr::ing to re.f :ererac:e €;aa.c.b. €haarage.
*Zee 1. .'Ionuneal addressed.
4. [Comment] The proposed modifications to TMP 32G -A (landscaping modifications,
grading changes, proposed retaining walls, revised SWMpath... etc) will require
additional information/review /and approval by the ARB and Engineering (see
departmental comments attached). ARB and Engineering approval is required prior to
approval of the amendment.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
5. [Comment] If any modifications to previously approved ACSA lines or other easements
are part of the proposed changes the easement holders will be required to approve the
proposed changes prior to County approval of the plan.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
6. [Comment] This minor amendment/mitigation plan will be utilized to process the
Special Exception request for the 20' buffer disturbance per Chapter 18 Section 21.7(c)l.
Prior to scheduling the Special Exception request for action by the BOS the mitigation
plan should be revised per Planning, ARB and Zoning's comments and resubmitted for
review to assure the plan meets County requirements and is appropriate for BOS action.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
C0N111.M],:1NT1 'The proposal has been revised tO include a vvooden.fen.ce al.o.n.g a
-pordan of the . mitigation. area at ffi.erear of the to-�vnhame lots. On the plall Provide as
detail of the f6icc for.ARB Also. on -11w plan provide the height of
tj,)e knice foT Also. sl"'fl:Yquestions Why the is only
providedBor a portion ofthe 1-ni ti o 'aborl. 'area and noi th.e enfirelength ofthei-nitkaled
I -
0 .1
La va.
Rey 1 ("onnnent addressed.
i M 1
oM]KN]"I On t,I)e plan label all relailiinp %Aalls ill. flie Vicinity of then.lifigatio.n.
area.
Rev 2. addressed.
.1 addres- all laridscaj)ing itern.s. ' 'oiablx; 1V " N' Please �,%,oi
9. [BUT',�," (.'0.*M.'.* .1 k iffi.AJU. to, s N
LIVinitiganted. area alow, the gas station's prkate roadis pry -posed. io lie planted. N�7i L'b. as
.predolmnance of decid1loustrees. limve-Ver, fli. re should be as -niix of ev rgreen al-nd,
decid Lious v�-i th as predoni inance ofevergreen trees and eVU.2reels ShRibs a� trite ordinfInce
reqidres 66r,,creening. kssure more everareen. plantings nweting Seelion. 3.'1--7.9,? K.) t ?,-
;1)) are provided. throLigh. ffie mltigadon:area,
Rev 2. Comment addressed.
0 FIN'W' 1"he proposal has been. i:.nodi fled to Provide off site 01.1.
I lags the ovvrier bee-D confacted v�-;i.th
regard to these plantings? Prior to s-ite plan aiiiandniem approval please pro-vide diked
off site agreenients fbE. teTliporary grading qnd landscapingy eascinclits froni affeted -
propeily
Rev 2. Per the revised plans Rio gk-ading or landscaping is taking F
place on the
adjaceut property own .9".1i Rand.
11. [NM 'k= COMMENT] 1t; appears die proposed private street -1.1rn Twive been
relocated. to Line up With the existing"I"'J.- u."free Cotirt" across
proposal appears to wilize."'Conswrie'I'MP 032GO-LB-02-000.130, 0.05 acres of opell space
laic la abuts Jainila Salehs property. T'his.change in pr6peily.. lilies will ne(M. to take place
s
on a subdivision. plav`13omidar , L.int plat, as PrOpel-INline", seeni, to be
open. space calesfbr Brfiir\�.,00d SUbdivision need, to
shifting in this are a. I'llerevised .1
Oe aceoa -nied .66 i� on the plat.
Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant, and will take place on the final
subdivision plat or a separate boundary line adjustment plat.
Also, in this area the disturbance of the 20' buffer between commercial and residential
zoning requires approval of a waiver/ special exception discussed above in comment #6,
and will need to be approved by the BOS. On the mitigation plan assure that this buffer
is clearly depicted and labeled. Assure that all plans being submitted match (road plans,
subdivision plats, etc).
Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant and a special exception request for this
disturbance was filed with the County on 7- 17 -14.
12. [NEW COMMENT] A Redi -Rock Retaining Wall detail plan for the site was
provided to the County on 7- 21 -14, the following comment has been generated
through review and consideration of these plans.
Per the design specification for these retaining walls and Engineering's findings in
consultation with Geotechnical Engineer, Michael Circeo, trees shall be setback from the
backface of the retaining wall a minimum distance as calculated using their tree canopy
calculations with a Safety Factor of 25% added to the setback. These setbacks take into
consideration the full growth of trees and root systems and helps to avoid failure of the
wall in the event a tree is blown down by heavy winds. To be clear, the tree setback shall
not be used to substantially reduce the number or type of trees; rather, plantings shall be
rearranged to accommodate the requirements. Utilize the following formula for each
species of tree to determine the required setback. Shrubs do not have a minimum setback
requirement to the wall.
If Canopy Calc of tree is 452 SF, then
452_ 3.1415 =143.8
Square root of 143.8 =11.99
Include a Safety Factor rating of 25%
11.99x1.25 =14.98
Thus the setback for this tree is 15 feet from backface of retaining wall.
Revise landscaping associated with the retaining walls appropriately.
13. [NEW COMMENT] On sheet 2, the plan makes note of "New Storm Drainage Easement
DB 4111 PG 521 "; however, when the deed was pulled it appears to truly be an "Existing 20'
Sanitary Sewer Easement owned by ACSA ". Revise the easement label on the plan. Also, I
discussed this easement with Alex Morrison of ACSA and he believes that this portion of that
line was abandoned, but the easement still remains. He suggested that it may be appropriate for
the easement to be vacated on the commercial lot final subdivision plat.
Also, on sheet 2 the plan makes note of "Existing Storm Drainage Easement DB 3833 PG233 ";
however, this easement appears to truly be a 20' Sanitary Sewer Easement owned by ACSA.
Revise the easement label on the plan. Notably this portion of the line was not abandoned and is
still active. Provide documentation from the easement holder that the proposed plantings (shrubs
and trees) are permitted to be planted in the easements. I discussed the plantings permitted in the
easement with Alex Morrison of ACSA, and he made note that shrubs are permitted with the
approval from ACSA but trees are strictly prohibited. Revise landscaping to remove trees from
the ACSA easement.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
See attached comments
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
1) Sheets 3 and 4 of retaining wall plans dated 7/18/14 show the 6' space between Walls 1 and 2
is reduced to 26" for plantings. Defer to Planning on reducing width of planting strip.
Wind- toppled trees' root systems may pull a wall down. Design must preserve integrity of Wall
3 geogrid system. Mike Circeo (design engineer) affirmed need for setback between trees and
Wall 3 (conversation, 22 July 2014). A conservative approach to establish (per species) setbacks
uses canopy area listed in plant schedule (Minor Site Plan Amendment #3) to calculate a radius -
distance for each species. A safety factor of .25 increases distance 25 %, from 10' to 12.5' as an
example. This approach is in line with design engineer's experience and recommendation (M.
Circeo, 22 -Jul). This wall is immediately adjacent to sidewalk and a high- volume roadway.
Will recommend monitoring (soil samples /test of bearing capacity /inspection) by a qualified
geotechnical representative during construction to help ensure proper outcome.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Phone: 434.296.5832 ext. 3443
s
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
July 23, 2014
Miller Cupp Associates Architects, P.C.
Dale Lee Cupp, AIA
1951 Evelyn Byrd Ave., Suite A
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
RE: ARB- 2014 -40: Briarwood Commercial
Dear Scott and Dale,
Collins Engineering
Scott Collins
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Fax (434) 972 -4126
I have reviewed the site plan (rev. 6/27/14) and canopy elevation sheet (rev. 7- 11 -14) for the Briarwood Commercial
project recently submitted to address my 7/10/2014 comments. I have the following updated comments:
1. As we discussed in email correspondence earlier this week, the note regarding the color for the underside of the fuel
pump canopies does not clearly state the ARB's intent. Please revise the note to clearly state that the color for the
ceilings of the canopies will be the color of the reverse side of the aluminum sample reviewed by the ARB on 6/23/14,
which is an off -white /tan color, not the standard glossy white finish.
2. It has been brought to my attention that retaining wall details have been submitted for engineering review and those
details show that geo -grid will be used for all proposed walls. Plans previously submitted to the ARB for review
indicated that the walls did not use geo -grid. With the new wall details, it appears that the proposed plants cannot be
accommodated as shown. There appears to be only 26" of clear planting area between walls 1 and 2. More space is
required to accommodate the staggered row of shrubs. 6' clear would be appropriate. Please revise the plans
accordingly.
The new wall details also suggest that additional space is needed between proposed trees and the back face of the
walls to limit impacts of the trees on the walls. A formula for calculating the required distance is provided below. The
formula is based on the tree canopy listed in the plant schedule. Please note that trees should be shifted, not
eliminated, to accommodate the required distance, and shrubs do not have a setback requirement. This impacts several
trees at wall 3 and possibly the trees at wall 2. Please revise the plans accordingly.
Canopy sf _ 3.14159 = a
1.25 (�a) = required distance from back face of wall
Example: Red Maple canopy = 452 sf. 452 - 3.14159 = 143.8 1.25 (4 143.8) = 14.99.
Required distance from Red Maple to back face of wall is 15'.
4. Please remove notes from the site plan stating that walls will not use geo -grid.
Please provide:
1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those
requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper
tracking and distribution.
When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: ARB- 2014 -40
Nena Harrell, United Land Corporation, P.O. Box 5548, Charlottesville, VA 22905
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated
below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please
explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files,
in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: DATE:
PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2014 -40: Briarwood Commercial
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions O indicates Submittal Code
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan E &S
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
1
M. Maliszewski
Waiver Request (WR)
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan RP
Private Road Request, with private /public comparison
(PRR)
Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA)
Preliminary Site Plan PSP
Final Site Plan or amendment FSP
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat (PP)
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat BAP
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB- 2014 -40
1
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
1
M. Maliszewski
s
17111-1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Margaret Maliszewski
RE: SDP - 2013 -35: Briarwood Mitigation Plan
DATE: July 2, 2013
Regarding the mitigation area west of Briarwood Drive, a more dense and more natural appearance is
appropriate. The landscape plan should be revised as follows:
Replace the Yoshino Cherry with a native tree.
Replace the Sugar Maple with a maple better suited to the local climate.
Show the trees and shrubs at 75% of their anticipated mature size.
Provide a more informal distribution of plants. Break up the groups of evergreen species more;
groups of three and five trees are recommended.
Add more small, shrub -like trees to the mix, like the Serviceberry. Crepe myrtle and Hawthorn
are among the options.
Add tall shrubs to the mix. Northern bayberry and Leatherleaf Viburnum are among the options.
Add more large deciduous and evergreens to the mix, dotted through the landscape. Deodar Cedar
is one evergreen option.
Increase the size of the deciduous trees to 2%2" caliper minimum at planting.
Regarding the retaining walls and planting shown east of Briarwood Drive:
An ARB application is required for these proposed changes. On the ARB application form, check
the box under "Review by the ARB" for "Amendment to an Approved Certificate of
Appropriateness." In addition to the items required by the Amendment checklist, the ARB
submittal should include /address the following:
Include "previously approved" and "proposed" planting and grading plans.
Include a narrative explaining the change in the storm water facilities and associated
plantings.
Provide justification for the significant reduction in plant quantities.
Indicate on the plans the proposed material and color for the two retaining walls. Clearly
indicate retaining wall heights.
Provide photos of the existing condition.
695RI,
01 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia .22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
0&272014
Scott Collins
200 Garrett Street, Suite K.
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP2013 -00035 Minor Amendment to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases IA- 1,1B -1, 4 — 8.
(Mitigation Plan)
Dear Sir:
Your minor amendment referenced above has been reviewed. In order for the plan to be approved the
following revisions are required:
1. [Comment] The final site plan number which this minor amendment is tied to shall be
referenced on the cover sheetisheet 1. Revise to provide the following: SDP2013 -00035 Minor
Amendment #3 (Mitigation Plan) to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases 1A- 1,111-1, 4 — 8.
Also, remove the reference that this is minor amendment 42; as there has already been an
approved minor amendment to this site plan it was SDP2010 -84 and there is currently an
application in our office for Minor Amendment SDP201300034.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
2. [Comment) As imtad alzove this applicatioii is slated to be fbe qtr €: minor site plan acne lidment for
these sections of the de�.elopirient. only 3 are permitted before gill changed need to be
in.corp€)rated into a mafor site plan amend -me lt. Pl.e�Lse tulle this .i.into consideration.
Rev 1. Statement was a reminder to the applicant. Nothing for applicant to address.
[Comment] The proposed changes affect various sheets in the final site plan. Per staff review it
appears changes should also be reflected on the original cover sheet (sheet 1) and sheets 51, 52,
and 53C. Revise to assure all applicable sheets which are being modified are provided. Per
Engineering's comments attached additional sheets may also need to be revised. Also, assure that
all modifications are clouded out on each sheet and provide numbering to reference each change.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
4. [Comment] The proposed modifications to TNT 32G -A (landscaping modifications, grading
changes, proposed retaining walls, revised SWMpath... etc) will require additional
information/review /and approval by the ARB and Engineering (see departmental comments
attached). ARB and Engineering approval is required prior to approval of the amendment.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
5. [Comment] 'If any, modifications to previously approved ACSA lines or other easements are part
of the proposed changes the easement holders will be required to approve the proposed changes
prior to County approval of the plan.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
,6. [Comment] This minor amendment/mitigation plan will be utilized to process the Special
Exception request for the.20' buffer disturbance per Chapter 18 Section 21.7(c)l.
Prior to scheduling the Special Exception request for action by the BOS the mitigation plan
should be revised per Planning, ARB and Zoning's comments and resubmitted for review to
assure the plan meets County requirements and is appropriate for BOS action.
Rev 1. Comment still relevant.
7. [NEW COMMENT] The proposal has been revised to include a wooden fence along a portion of
the mitigation area.at the rear of the townhome lots. On the plan provide a detail of the fence for
ARB consideration/review. Also, on the plan provide the height of the fence for staff
consideration/review. Also, staff questions why the fence is only provided for a portion of the
mitigation area and not the entire length of the mitigated area.
8. [NEW COMMENT.] On the plan label all retaining walls in the vicinity of the mitigation area.
9. [NEW COMMENT] Please work with ARB to address all landscaping items. Notably, the
mitigated area along the gas station's private road is proposed to be planted with a predominance
of deciduous trees; however, there should be a mix of evergreen and deciduous with a
predominance of evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs as the ordinance requires for screening.
Assure more evergreen plantings meeting Section 32.7.9.7 (C) & (D) are provided through the
mitigation area.
10. [NEW COMMENT] The proposal has been modified to provide off site plantings on TMP
032GO- 1B -02- 07100, owned by Jamila Saleh. Has the owner been contacted with regard to these
plantings? Prior to site plan amendment approval please provide signed off -site agreements for:
temporary grading and landscaping easements from affected property owner.
11. [NEW COMMENT] It appears the proposed private street "Elm Tree Court' has been relocated
to line up with the existing "Elm Tree Court" across Briarwood Drive. The proposal appears to
utilize /consume TMP 032GO- lB- 02- OOOBO, 0.05 acres of open space which abuts Jamila Saleh's
property. This change in property lines will need to take place on a subdivision plat/ Boundary
Line Adjustment plat, as property lines seem to be shifting in this area. The revised open space
calcs for Briarwood subdivision will need to be accounted for on the plat.
Also, in this area the disturbance of the 20' buffer between commercial and residential zoning
requires approval of a waiver/ special exception discussed above in comment #6, and will need to
be approved by the BOS. On the mitigation plan assure that this buffer is clearly depicted
and labeled. Assure that all plans being submitted match (road plans, subdivision plats, etc).
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
See attached comments
Engineering Comments — John Anderson
Comments pending.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
P annmg Division
Phone: 434.296.5832 ext. 3443
•
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 12:41 PM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: John Anderson; Margaret Maliszewski
Subject: SDP2013-35 Briarwood (mitigation plan)
Attachments: CD2 SDP2013-35_6-27-14.pdf
Scott,
Attached are the comments for SDP2013-35 Briarwood (mitigation plan). These
are available on Countyview. Notably, Michelle Roberge went into labor before
she was able to complete her review of this plan. The plan has now been
transferred to John Anderson for Engineering review, once he completes his
review I'll forward you his comments.
Thanks
Christopher P.Perez;Senior Planner
Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville.VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott(&collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:30 AM
To: Christopher Perez
Subject: Briarwood
Chris-
We have resubmitted all the site plans, road plans,ARB plans,and WPO plans for the Briarwood projects
over the last week. Let me know if you have any questions or need anything additional. The mitigation
plan was resubmitted along with the fee and waiver request for the planting strip reductions and
sidewalk modification. If there is any way that we can get on the consent agenda for July BOS meeting,
that would be extremely helpful. Mr.Wood has commitments with the property and is depending on
some of these approvals by then.
Thanks Chris, and let me know if there is anything else that you need.
Scott
1
l
p -.;i:'r :F.`:.•'r , i 032G00000000A0
TN4PI032G0-00-00-000A0 Zoning Cl Commercial 032G00000000B0
Owwpp4Fst WOODBRIAR ASSOCIATES _
_9 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA Zip 22905
Anolicattion N.An!er ■j Type I Project N
A n o n n i",1 1 A 1 7 n A.."1-04,-."4-.......1 0+.,,,.4-......1 n,...:.....,pr.-...a p..;..........----4 r^....."....-........-....;-.! i
CLE201300144 Zoning Clearance
SDP199100075
SDP199200025
Christopher Perez I
Margaret Minor Amendment ARB Approved 08/08/14 08/22/14 08/13/14
■
Margaret Matiszews1No Submittal"type JAF+;13 wW Requested Change 06/11/13 07/02/1
Michelle Roberge Minor Amendment Engineering See Recommendatio 06/11/13 07/03/1
Michelle Roberge ,"Minor Amendment i Engineering See Recommendatio ,06/11/14 1 06/25/14 06/23/1
Margaret Maliszews Minor Amendment ARB Requested Changes 06/11/14 06/25/14 06/24/1
Christopher Perez, Minor Amendment y CC? [Requested Changes 06/09/14 06/25/14 06/27/1
John Anderson Minor Amendment Engineering See Recommendatio 06/23/14 07/09/1
John Anderson 'Minor Amendment i Engineeringu 1See Recommendatio 07/08/14 }.. .07/09/1
Christopher Perez No Submittal Type CD Requested Changes 07/08/14 07/24/1
Margaret Maliszews 5 No Submittal Type ARB T Requested Changes 07/08/14 07/22/14 07/24/1
John Anderson Minor Amendment Engineering Requested Changes 07/21/14 07/24/1
Margaret Matiszews Y
t Minor Amendment ARE Requested Changes 06/06/14 08/20/14 08/07/1
John Anderson Minor Amendment Engineering PNo Objection 08/07/14 08/08/1
Ch ern � '.., � ,_..,._nw„,,, „���
No Submittal Type CD See Recommendatio 08/07/14 1 08/08/1
:M;por Ani ndrnent:!0!000: ARB 08/08/14 ::08/22/14 08/13/1
No Submittal Type CD 08/08/14 08/21/1
Christopher Perez No Submittal Type Pending 09/03/14
Document Review Title (Review Documents located in Laser Fiche, will also show on the Web)
Existing Review Docs
Comments: The box below is meant for short comments. I / /
VCf�
Date
Sent Send Email to the Review Coordinator or Contact regarding your review
•
^�- 11�illr IlIIf1.�•
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
June 23, 2014
Dale Lee Cupp — A.I.A. Architect
1951 -A Evelyn Byrd Ave
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
RE: ARB- 2014 -40: Briarwood Commercial
032GOOOOOOOOA0
Dear Mr. Cupp:
I have reviewed the resubmittal for the above - referenced application and I have the following comments:
1. Increase the height of shrubs for the stormwater facility located south of the gas station and for the outfall
area located north of Briarwood Drive to 24" minimum at planting. Increase the size of the London
Planetree north of Briarwood Drive to 3'/2" caliper minimum at planting.
2. The ARB considered the canopy /glare issue at its June 23, 2014 meeing. Regarding the color for the
underside of the canopy, provide photographs showing the difference between the plain and textured
surfaces, confirming that the textured surface reduces glare. Or, install the canopy underside material
marked ".032 white aluminum embossed" as the exposed face.
3. A lighting note appears on the plan, but it does not include all the required wording. Add the standard
lighting note to the plan: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial
lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto
public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half
footcandle."
4. Provide additional information on the plan to show how the upper retaining wall will accommodate the
planting of trees close -by. Indicate if geogrid reinforcement will be used for that wall. If it will be used,
show on the plan how far the geo -grid will extend beyond the wall.
5. Comment #11 from our May 19, 2014 letter stated that interior parking lot trees should be revised to a
large species, 2'/2" caliper at planting. The 2'/2" caliper change has been made; however, the change to a
large species has not. It is recommended that the serviceberry and redbud at the interior of the parking lot
be replaced with a large tree species. It may be expensive and /or difficult to find serviceberry and redbud
at that size.
6. The ARB considered the retaining wall block at its June 23, 2014 meeting. The RediRock Ledgestone will
be appropriate if the landscaping is increased to sufficiently minimize the effect of the monotone white
color. This can be accomplished with plant size, spacing and species.
7. The version of the mitigation area landscape plan included in this submittal reverts to a much earlier layout
that staff commented on in July, 2013. Staff's comments were addressed in the plan that the ARB
reviewed in January 2014. Provide for review a detailed landscaping plan for the mitigation area (with
plant schedule and plants identified) based on the plant layout reviewed by the ARB in January, 2014, not
the earlier version.
Please provide:
1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on
each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other
than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in
the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to
ensure proper tracking and distribution.
When staff s review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be issued.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret Maliszewski
Principal Planner
cc: Woodbriar Associates, P O Box 5548, Charlottesville VA 22905
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff
has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit
additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be
collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal.
TO: Margaret Maliszewski DATE:
PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2014 -40: BriarwoodCommercial
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions ( ) indicates submittal Cade
County Project Number
# Copies
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E &S)
# Copies
Distribute To:
Mitigation Plan (MP)
2
Margaret Maliszewski
Waiver Request WR
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Road Plan RP
Private Road Request, with private /public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA
Preliminary Site Plan (PSP)
Final Site Plan or amendment FSP
Final Plat (FP)
Preliminary Plat PP
Easement Plat (EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat BAP
Rezoning Plan (REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan (SP -CP)
Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP)
Proffers (P)
Bond Estimate Request (BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan (F -GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR)
Architectural Review Board (ARB)
ARB2014 -40
Other: Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
Submittal Code
# Copies
Distribute To:
ARB
2
Margaret Maliszewski
Noe
Christopher Perez
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 3:39 PM
To: Andrew Kellerman
Cc: Margaret Maliszewski; Michelle Roberge; Lisa Green; Ron Higgins; David Benish
Subject: Summary of Briarwood plats and plans under review in our office
Andy,
As requested this email shall serve as an update for Briarwood subdivision plats, site plans, site plan
amendments, and ARB application,which are under review/pending resubmittal. It appears the applicant is
actively moving forward with the plans; however, due to the complexity of the various overlapping items
many incremental approvals and reviews must be accomplished by various departments prior to
resubmittal and or approval of the mitigation plan.
* ARB-2013-174: Briarwood Commercial.
Margaret of ARB is currently reviewing ARB-2013-174: Briarwood Commercial. This proposal includes the
convenience store and fuel pump canopy, the changes to the buffer area between the commercial and residential
lots, and the changes to the stormwater facility just north of Briarwood Drive. The proposal is currently
scheduled for ARB review on January 6, 2014.
* WP02013-18_the briarwood underground detention project.
Recently revised, and approved. e _.�
-*—SDP2013-35 minor site plan amendment_Landscape Mitigation plan
1St round of comments sent on 7-3-13. It appears that the applicant has made an ARB application A -2013-
./ 174, which was one of the requirements to move forward with the proposal, almost all the site plans or
amendments in this office are pending on the ARB review/approval of that document to move forward.Also
with this review Engineering had commented that the changes to the SWM facility would need to be )
coordinated with WPO2013-18_the briarwood underground detention project Per confirmation with
Engineering the WP02013-18 has been approved and her comment was addressed. Other than theARB
'------..„application and revised/approved WPO, a second submittal of the minor amendment h een submitted by
the app-l-ic_ant. --�
* SDP2013-34 minor site plan amendment_modify lot numbers and parking spaces
1St round of comments sent on 6-28-13. A second submittal of the minor amendment has not been submitted by
the applicant.
*SDP2012-64 Preliminary Site plan —Briarwood Gas Station
3 rounds of review have went out on this project (12-3-12, 1-4-13. 7-19-13). In addition to many other
comments remaining, staff is awaiting the mitigation plan SDP2013-35 to be approved prior to this plan being
approved.
*SUB2(}13-43 Briarwood Commercial Lot— preliminary subdivision plat for 5 commercial lots
2 rounds of review have went out on this project (4-17-13 and 7-19-13). In addition to many other comments
remaining staff awaiting a revised tra is an analysis requested I`, T DOT and Entlineering to determine the
road i_ adequate to carry traffic volu me...
'tit-?.::(113-2 Harwood —Final ' al to ( eau.. 31 : ec .Y... .•I lc rs: . . Lo.L
14-22 (phase lA-1, Lots 15-23A (phase 1A-2), lots 43 —47 (phase 5). `4.0
2 rounds of review have went out on this project (4-3-13 and 7-19-13). Pending.
a°apt,trlt,r 1`. •,,,,-2 j Senior Planner
Department of Community Development 1County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
A4.0
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701-3819
Gregory A.Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July 19, 2013
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP2013-00034 Briarwood Phase 1A-1, 1B-1,4-8 Minor Amendment
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the Site Plan Amendment#1 for Briarwood Phases 1A-1, 1B-1,4-8 dated
6/3113 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The amendments for these sections indicate an additional number of residential units.
The number of additional units is not expected to significantly impact the overall traffic
of the development; however,the increased trip generation should be taken into account
of the traffic study for the proposed commercial development along Route 29.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Et?,
tiewl
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
of A
�'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
07 -03 -2013
Scott Collins
200 Garrett Street, Suite K.
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP2013 -00035 Minor Amendment to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases IA- 1,1B -1, 4 — 8.
(Mitigation Plan)
Dear Sir:
Your minor amendment referenced above has been reviewed. In order for the plan to be approved -the
following revisions are required:
[Comment] The final site plan number which this minor amendment is tied to shall be
referenced on the cover sheet/sheet 1. Revise. to, provide the following: SDP2013 -00035 Minor
Amendment #3 (Mitigation Plan) to SDP2006 -00041 Briarwood Phases 1A- 1,1B -1, 4 — 8.
Also, remove the reference that this is minor amendment #2; as there has already been an
approved minor amendment to this site plan it was SDP2010 -84 and there is currently an
application in our office for Minor Amendment SDP201300034.
2. [Comment] As noted above this application is slated to be the 3rd minor site plan amendment for
these sections of the development, only 3 are permitted before all changed need to be
incorporated into a major site plan amendment. Please take this into consideration.
3. [Comment] The proposed changes affect various sheets in the final site plan. Per staff review it
appears changes should also be reflected on the original cover sheet (sheet 1) and sheets 51, 52,
and 53C. Revise to assure all applicable sheets which are being modified are provided. Per
Engineering's comments attached additional sheets may also need to be revised. Also, assure that
all modifications are clouded out on each sheet and provide numbering to reference each change.
4. [Comment] The proposed modifications to TMP 32G -A (landscaping modifications, gradilag
changes, proposed retaining walls, revised SWMpath... etc) will require additional
information/review /and approval by the ARB and Engineering (see departmental comments
attached). ARB and Engineering approval is required prior to approval of the amendment.
5. [Comment] If any modifications to previously approved ACSA lines or other easements are part
of the proposed changes the easement holders will be required to approve the proposed changes
prior to County approval of the plan.
6. [Comment] This minor amendment/mitigation plan will be utilized to process the Special
Exception request for the 20' buffer disturbance per Chapter 18 Section 21.7(c)l.
Prior to scheduling the Special Exception request for action by the BOS the mitigation plan
should be revised per Planning, ARB and Zoning's comments and resubmitted for review to
assure the plan meets County requirements and is appropriate for BOS action. It is staff's hope to
process /take both Special Exceptions associated with the Gas Station Site plan (the critical slopes
"waiver" and the "20' buffer disturbance waiver') to the BOS at the same meeting.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
Regarding.the mitigation area west of Briarwood Drive, a more dense and more natural
appearance is appropriate. The landscape plan should be revised as follows:
0 Replace the Yoshino Cherry with a native tree.
❑ Replace the Sugar Maple with a maple better suited to the local climate.
❑ Show the trees and shrubs at 75% of their anticipated mature size.
❑ Provide a more informal distribution of plants. Break up the groups of evergreen species more; groups
of three and five trees are recommended.
❑ Add more small, shrub -like trees to the mix, like the Serviceberry. Crepe myrtle and Hawthorn are
among the options.
❑ Add tall shrubs to the mix. Northern bayberry and Leatherleaf Viburnum are among the options.
❑ Add more large deciduous and evergreens to the mix, dotted through the landscape. Deodar Cedar is
one evergreen option.
❑ Increase the size of the deciduous trees to 2%2" caliper minimum at planting.
Regarding the retaining walls and planting shown east of Briarwood Drive:
❑ An ARB application is required for these proposed changes. On the ARB application form, check the
box under "Review by the ARB" for "Amendment to an Approved Certificate of Appropriateness." In
addition to the items required by the Amendment checklist, the ARB submittal should include /address the
following:
❑ Include "previously approved" and "proposed" planting and grading plans.
❑ Include a narrative explaining the change in the storm water facilities and associated plantings.
❑ Provide justification for the significant reduction in plant quantities.
❑ Indicate on the plans the proposed material and color for the two retaining walls. Clearly indicate
retaining wall heights.
❑ Provide photos of the existing condition.
Engineering Comments — Michelle Roberge
See attached comments.
If you have any questions about the comments please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Email: cperez @albemarle.org
Phone: 434.296.5832 ext. 3443
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Briarwood Minor
Collins Engineering [293 -3719]
Woodbriar Associates
4 Jun 2013
28 Jun 2013
Michelle Roberge
Engineering has completed the Site Plan Amendment #2 for Briarwood Phases 1A -1, 113-1, 4 -8.
Please address the following comments
A. Site Development Plan (SDP201300035)
This landscaping plan shall be approved after a WPO has been approved for parcel TM32G -A.
The retaining walls, grading and the SWM facility shown on TM32G -A have not been approved
and it will work best if all proposed items are coordinated with WP02013 -18, the Briarwood
Underground Detention project. Also, please remove the retaining wall near the underground
detention.
Sincerely,
Michelle Roberge