Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800074 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2018-11-19GIRGINIP` COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 November 14, 2018 Scott Collins 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville VA 22902 SDP201800074 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan SUB201800178 Avon Park II — Preliminary Subdivision Plat Mr. Collins: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposals referenced above. Initial comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Planning Services Albemarle County Engineering Services Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Architectural Review Board (ARB) Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Virginia Department of Transportation Albemarle County Building Inspections Virginia Department of Health - Comments pending to be forwarded - Comments pending to be forwarded Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that will be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision Plat approvals. Please request deferral of the special exception, the initial site plan, and the preliminary plat by Tuesday, November 20th to allow for revisions. If I do not receive a deferral request by then I will move forward with a denial of the initial site plan and the preliminary plat, and I will schedule the special exception for the BOS with a recommendation of denial. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Scott Collins From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: November 14, 2018 Subject: SDP201800074 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan SUB201800178 Avon Park 11— Preliminary Subdivision Plat The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan/plat referenced above once the following comments 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.): 1. [ZMA2014-6, 33.151 Amendments to Existing Proffers. A proffer amendment is needed for proffer 3 and proffer 10. Proffer 3 - The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the timing of required plantings in various landscape easements, which are tied to certificate of occupancies (COs) for various lots/units. Proffer 10 - The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the location of the required scrim fence. The applicant shall follow the procedures in Section 33.15(a)l prior to making the request for the proffer amendments. Please submit a request to the Clerk of the Board before submitting the application for a zoning map amendment. Staff is supportive of revising the two proffers mentioned above to match the current proposal and is also supportive of waiving the required public hearings for this request as permitted in Section 33.15(A)(1)(a). Prior to initial site plan/preliminary plat approval the proffer amendment shall be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Please request deferral of the initial site plan & the preliminary plat by Tuesday, November 20th to allow for submittal and review of the proffer amendment. If I do not receive a deferral request by then I will move forward with a denial of the proposals. 2. [ZMA2014-6, 33.44, 8.5.5.3(a)] Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan. The proposal relies on a special exception to vary certain aspects of the rezoning, including but not limited to modifications to unit types, parking, setbacks, road network, stormwater management, and lot layout from what was approved in the rezoning. Prior to initial site plan/preliminary plat approval the special exception shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Based on staff s review of the proposal (w the initial site plan acting as a revised application plan) the special exception request requires revisions prior to moving forward to the Board of Supervisors w/ a favorable recommendation. Planning's review comments 2-11 shall be adequately addressed in a revised initial site plan and resubmitted for review prior to scheduling the variation to the Board of Supervisors. Please request deferral of the special exception, the initial site plan, and the preliminary plat by Tuesday, November 20th to allow for revisions. If I do not receive a deferral request by then I will move forward with a denial of the initial site plan and the preliminary plat, and I will schedule the special exception for the BOS with a recommendation of denial. 3. [ZMA2014-6, 33.44, 8.5.5.3(a)61 Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan - Stormwater Management Facility. The County Engineer does not support the use of a level spreader for this site. The slope below the level spreader is too steep to meet the BMP Spec. 2 requirements. The soils (71C and 72C3) have rapid surface runoff and the hazard of erosion is severe, especially combined with the steepness. A high flow bypass is also required and will likely have to be directed to the ditch along Avon, at which point it may be better to pipe the runoff there. Revise the initial site plan to utilize a different method/design for the stormwater management. 4. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a), 33.44, 4.191 Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan - Setbacks. The minimum front setbacks are listed on sheet 1 as 15'; however, throughout the plans they are depicted and labeled as 10'. Revise the plans to clarify the front setback request. 5. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a), 33.44, 4.191 Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan - Setbacks. The minimum rear setbacks are listed on sheet 1 as 5' adjacent to open space and 15' adjacent to lots. Notably the entire development is surrounded by open space. However throughout the plans the rear setbacks are depicted and listed as 15'. Revise the plans to clarify the rear setback request. 6. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)2] Waterline Access for Adjacent Lots. Provide a 20' waterline easement to the northern property line and to the southern property line along Stratford Places. Additionally, provide a waterline easement that extends to TMP 90-30B. These easements shall be platted prior to final site plan approval. 7. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)41 Landscape Easement. The 10' landscape easement along the southern property line shall be extended to the original location specified on the application plan. 8. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)41 Landscape Easement. The eastern side of Lot 1 shall be provided a 10' landscape easement w/ plantings. 9. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)4] Landscape Easement. The proposed 15' drainage and landscape easement behind lots 1-5 shall be revised to omit drainage from the easement and shall merely be for landscaping. 10. [ZMA2014-6, 32.5.1(c), 8.5.5.3(a)4] There is offsite grading proposed on TMP 90E-9 just behind lot 28. A temporary grading easement shall be required to facilitate the grading. Prior to final site plan approval any required easements will need to be plated. The DB page information of this action shall be provided on the final site plan. Previously retaining walls were proposed in the development to avoid offsite grading. Are retaining walls still planned but just not shown due to the level of detail provided? 11. [ZMA2014-6, 33.44(b), 8.5.5.3(a)] Special Exception Application. As previously discussed, recent changes in the County ordinance require the property owner to sign the SE application. Please submit an owner signed application. 12. [ZMA2014-6] Proffer 6. The final site plan shall identify the location of trees at the rear of TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42, TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 90E-F-44. If trees are located within 5' or less of the property line, the owner will remove the trees on the adjacent properties. Tree removal will be subject to the existing property owner's written approval. 13. [ZMA2014-6] Proffer 8. The final site plan shall include TMP 90E-Al . Improvements required by proffer 8 shall be depicted, label, and dimensioned as part of the final site plan. 14. [ZMA2014-6] Proffer 1. Label the 6 affordable housing units on the final subdivision plat and the final site plan. 15. [4.20] Parking. The development is permitted a maximum of 81 parking spaces to meet the 20% maximum parking threshold. Currently the proposal is over this maximum. Please remove 3 parking spaces. 16. [Comment] Prior to final plat approval VDH approval shall be received to ensure Lot 29 and Lot 30 are each provided a primary and reserve drainfield. 17. [Comment] Revise the zoning of the property to list ZMA2014-6. 18. [ZMA2014-6] Proffers. All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers. 19. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 20. [32.8.2, 14-311] Infrastructure improvement plans. Road Plans and WPO application must be approved, all required improvements must be built or bonded, and all required Deeds and Declarations must be reviewed and approved prior to final site plan/ final subdivision plat approval. 21. [14-317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. Submit with the final site plan/ final subdivision plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of street trees, private streets, open space and any other improvements that are to be maintained in perpetuity. 22. [32.6] The final site plan shall meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code. 23. [Comment] The final site plan/ final subdivision plat shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the plan. Their comments attached. Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using cperezkalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3443 for further information. Engineering —Matthew Wentland 1. The road plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval. 2. The VSMP plans will need to be approved before final site plan approval. 3. All offsite easements will need to be obtained prior to final site plan approval. 4. Show how the roof drains will tie into the storm system. 5. The emergency access road is graded in a way that concentrates runoff. Show how this will be addressed. 6. It does not appear that a level spreader will work for this site. The slope below the level spreader is too steep to meet the BMP Spec. 2 requirements. The soils (71C and 72C3) have rapid surface runoff and the hazard of erosion is severe, especially combined with the steepness. A high flow bypass is also required and will likely have to be directed to the ditch along Avon, at which point it may be better to pipe the runoff there. Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox 1. All streets in this phase shall be marked no parking on both sides. 2. If the building heights are to exceed 30' then the travel ways must be increased to 26' of unobstructed travel width, current plan indicates not to exceed 35'. 3. The second emergency access is only shown as 12' of gravel surface. Is there a topographic, other site reasons, it will not be 20'? 4. A fire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance. ACSA — Richard Nelson Submit 3 copies of the site plan to ACSA for review along with water/sewer data sheets. Note that water pressure in this area may be low due to the location in proximity to the tank. ARB — Margaret Maliszewski 1) Currently, Entrance Corridor regulations are not being applied to properties along Avon Street Extended. ARB review is not required at this time. E911— Comments Attached VDOT — Comments Attached Building Official — Comment Pending Virginia Department of Health — Comment Pending County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 4 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911 APPLICATION#: SDP201800074 DATE: 10/11/2018 FROM: Andrew Walker awalker@albemarle.org Geographic Data Services (GDS) www.albemarle.org/ads (434) 296-5832 ext. 3031 Critical Issues The proposed road names STRATFORD WAY, STRATFORD COURT, and STRATFORD PLACE are not acceptable, as there is an existing STRATFORD COURT in the City of Charlottesville. Per Part I, Section 4-a of the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual (page 6 of PDF): "A proposed road name which duplicates an existing or reserved road name in Albemarle County or the City of Charlottesville shall not be approved. An exception may be made for cul-de-sacs which have the same name as the road from which they originate (example: "Amberfield Court" which originates from "Amberfield Drive")." A new road name will need to be submitted. We recommend providing three (3) candidate names to our office for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. Additional Notes 1. It appears that the road labeled as STRATFORD PLACE will not be used for addressing any structures, and thus does not require a name. However, if three (3) or more structures may use this road for an address in the future, it is appropriate to name it now. Resources Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The Index can be found here: httn://www.albemarle.ora/albemarle/unload/imaaes/webaoos/roads/ A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here: https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Geographic Data Service s/Forms/Road Namina and Property Numberina Ordinance and Manual.Ddf Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.or If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Commissioner November 14, 2018 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Christopher Perez Re: Avon Park II -- Initial Site Plan & Preliminary Subdivision Plat SDP-2018-00074 & SUB-2018-00178 Review #1 Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated 24 September 2018, and offers the following comments: 1. Will bollards be placed on the emergency access road? If not, this entrance on to Route 742 must be upgraded to commercial entrance design standards and meet all Access Management Regulations. 2. The decision point of the intersection sight line triangle must be offset 14.5 feet from the edge of travelway. Also, the provided sight lines appear to be short of the required 280 feet. 3. CG-12's must be perpendicular to the crossing street, not angled toward the middle of the intersection. 4. Note that the final site and road plans must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other requirements. Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. 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, YO-P-1 OA-- Adam J. Mo re, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Christopher Perez Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:51 PM To: 'Scott Collins'; 'maryamt_@hotmail.com' Cc: Rick Randolph; Pam Riley; Vito Cetta; 'Jeremy W. Swink' Subject: FW: SDP201800074 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan & SUB201800178 Avon Park II — Preliminary Subdivision Plat Maryam, Thanks for contacting me, your comments are well received. I offer the following responses in red. Scott, Please see my responses to Maryam's comments. There are a few additional items for you to address in the resubmittal that I missed during my initial review, see below in red. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 From: Maryam T. <maryamt_@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:04 PM To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>; Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com> Cc: Rick Randolph <rrandolph@albemarle.org>; Pam Riley <priley2@albemarle.org>; Vito Cetta <vitocetta@mac.com>; Jeremy W. Swink <SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com> Subject: Re: SDP201800074 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan & SUB201800178 Avon Park II — Preliminary Subdivision Plat Christopher, My apologies for not being able to make it to the meeting this morning due to the school closures. Per my earlier email, I would like to speak with you today or tomorrow regarding some concerns that the Avon Park HOA has with respect to the recommendations and the overall plan, as some have adverse impacts on my community. Below are some of our concerns that I would like to discuss with you: [ZMA2014-6, 33.15] Amendments to Existing Proffers. A proffer amendment is needed for proffer 3 and proffer 10. Proffer 3 - The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the timing of required plantings in various landscape easements, which are tied to certificate of occupancies (COs) for various lots/units. • The Avon Park HOA, along with the neighbors who are impacted by this development, request that concrete timelines be included on when the required plantings in the various landscaping easements are to be planted. It is very important to us to have the proper privacy in place as soon as possible and we are not comfortable with the uncertainty on when this will take place. Staff response: understood. This will be addressed moving forward. Please also note: Per our discussions with Jeremy Swink, we noted that our initial landscaping recommendations (for the landscaping privacy barrier) between Avon Park I and Avon Park II was based on there being shorter single family homes behind my community. Since the Townhomes are taller, we are requesting a change to the our previously proposed landscaping plantings. Jeremy mentioned how this could be worked with them separately, however, we would like some language in the document indicating that we would like the plantings changed due to the new design of the Avon Park II development. Defer to you Christopher on how we can best go about this. Staff response: Scott Collins, somehow I overlooked a landscape plan as part of the variation request. With the revised initial site plan, which is acting as an application plan for the variation request, I'd like a landscape plan submitted with the initial site plan. I'll add this to my review comments for the initial site plan/prelim sub plat. Staff advises you to work with the neighbors/Jeremy Swink to determine the appropriate planting changes, if any are to occur from the existing application plan. I will say, this is residential to residential, so from my end I won't require a change for a staff recommendation of approval; however, the BOS will need to approve the variation request and they may require evergreen trees 9single row or double row) in place of evergreen shrubs because the unit type is being switched from SFD to SFA and the intensity of the residential units are being clustered on half the site, thus supporting a more intensive landscape buffer of evergreen trees. Please consider this when making revisions to the initial site plan and providing the landscape plan as requested. Proffer 10 - The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the location of the required scrim fence. We have significant concerns with the developer NOT including a scrim fence along the Avon Park 1/Avon Park 2 property line. Without the scrim fence, the neighbors who are impacted by this development will be unfairly burdened by dust, noise, and the unsightly nature of the construction process. We also have some owners who are looking to sell their property and absent a scrim fence, it would have adverse effects on their property values. Most developments throughout our County do utilize a scrim fence when construction is occurring between two communities. Therefore, there should not be any exceptions made for my community. My community feels very strongly about this issue and we would like to have the scrim fence be put back in. Staff response: The scrim fencing is a proffer, it's required. My review comment merely seeks to lock it down for the new layout of the proposal. Your concerns are addressed. [ZMA2014-6] Proffer 6. The final site plan shall identify the location of trees at the rear of TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42, TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 90E-F-44. If trees are located within 5' or less of the property line, the owner will remove the trees on the adjacent properties. Tree removal will be subject to the existing property owner's written approval. We would like clarification on this. Per our discussions with Jeremy, he had mentioned that Stanley Martin would try to preserve as much trees as possible on the Avon Park II side. The language, as written above, suggestions that potentially ALL trees within the 5' or less of the property line will be removed. Can Jeremy or Scott please clarify whether all or some of the trees will be removed? Staff response: The way I read proffer #6 - it specifically talks about trees on the Avon Park I side being removed (TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42, TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 90E-F-44). All the trees on Avon Park II adjacent to the above mentioned TMPs was coming out and new evergreen trees were being planted within the Avon park II buffer. I defer to Scott on any further guidance. For additional clarification, will there be a temporary easement required behind 1964-1968 Tudor Court for the removal of the trees as referenced above? Based on our understanding, the temporary easement for the removal of trees exist only behind 1147-1165 Arden Drive. Staff response: No, temp easements are not required to cut down your trees. The proffer speaks to written permission from the property owners of TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42, TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 106I1109051 [4.20] Parking. The development is permitted a maximum of 81 parking spaces to meet the 20% maximum parking threshold. Currently the proposal is over this maximum. Please remove 3 parking spaces. We are concerned about the County's request to remove 3 parking spaces from the plan. While the County may believe that there are sufficient parking spaces, the development as a whole is small, and any additional parking spaces needed (especially during holidays and weekends) will spill over to the Avon Park I side. The Avon Park I community currently does not have sufficient parking to support our own community and any overflow of parking from Avon II will significantly impact us. We strongly request that the County not mandate the removal of these parking spaces due to the potential adverse impact on Avon Park I. Staff response: Scott Collins you may provide the additional spaces as depicted on your application plan. Staff will merely make a note about the 20% situation in the staff report to the BOS but in light of the HOA's concerns I will recommend approval of the 3 additional spaces. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a), 33.44, 4.19] Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan - Setbacks. • We look forward to seeing the final numbers on the setbacks as well, as it was our understanding that they would beat 15' throughout. Staff response: under what context are you referring to "your understanding" of the setback request? Was it a previous meeting with the applicant? Or a former rezoning? The current front setbacks for Avon Park II are 25' front setback. The applicant requested two opposing fronts 10' and 15'...Scott Collins, when you provide your true request please submit a justification for why you are going below 25' front setback and what this setback permits you to accomplish. Please note: Section 4.19 permits a 5' min on a PRD. Also, Avon Park I required 25' front setbacks. So whatever you request, please justify it. Thanks [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)2] Waterline Access for Adjacent Lots. Provide a 20' waterline easement to the northern property line and to the southern property line along Stratford Places. Additionally, provide a waterline easement that extends to TMP 90-3013. These easements shall be platted prior to final site plan approval. Note: There is also a reference by ACSA indicating "...waster pressure in this area may be low due to the location in proximity to the tank." Question: Is the plan for the Avon Park II development to tie into the water tower system that is currently in place on Avon I? If so, we would like to note that our water pressure throughout the community is extremely low and we have reached out to the AC Water Authority on numerous occasions reference this issue and we were told that there is nothing that can be done about our concerns. If another development ties into this water system, the Avon Park I community will see even more decrease in our water pressure, which puts an unfair burden on my community. Can the County please elaborate on how the water pressure issue will the handled? Staff response: this connection is a public water connection. ACSA provided the following comments: Submit 3 copies of the site plan to ACSA for review along with water/sewer data sheets. Note that water pressure in this area may be low due to the location in proximity to the tank. ACSA's review comments leads me to believe this proposal is approvable. Please contact Richard Nelson of ACSA for a more detailed explanation of the issue and whether or not they have any control of this issue. His contact info is: rnelson&serviceauthority.oor at (434) 977-4511 Thank you for your time and I look forward to discussing these issues with you. Maryam Tatavosian President, Avon Park HOA From: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:05 PM To: Scott Collins Cc: maryamt @hotmail.com; Rick Randolph; Pam Riley; Vito Cetta;guietlife242@gmail.com; taradecardenas@gmail.com; Jeremy W. Swink Subject: SDP201800074 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan & SUB201800178 Avon Park II — Preliminary Subdivision Plat Scott, SDP201800074 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan SUB201800178 Avon Park II — Preliminary Subdivision Plat Attached are SRC review comments for the above ref project. Reminder, site review is tomorrow. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Review Comments for SDP201800074 11nitial Site Plan Project Name: Avon Park II - Initial Date Completed: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 DepartmentlDi+visionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Michael Dellinger CDD Inspections No Obje-Ction No Objections Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 1-V261 1818