HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201800164 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2019-02-19k'
01Y AL
vit�r�A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Memorandum
To: Emily Cox (ecox cr,albemarle.org)
From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 15, 2019
Subject: SUB2018-00164 Old Trail Village — Block 32 - Road Plans
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced above
once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have
been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based upon further review.) [Each
comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise
specified.]
1. [General Comment] A road plan must be a stand-alone document and should not include a site plan or
other types of plans. Rev.1: Comment not addressed.
2. [General Comment] Please include a plan view of the road that is separate from the site plan, and include
those items required by 18-32.6.6 and 14-304. (A list of items required to be included should also be in
the checklist portion of the application document for a road plan, which may be easier to consult than the
full ordinance sections.) Everything that is proposed to be in the right-of-way in the road plans, including
the sidewalks, planting strips, signage, etc., should be shown and labelled on the aerial plan views. Also,
include the dimensions of each element in the right-of-way, as well as the proposed paving materials (e.g.,
concrete for the sidewalks). Rev.1: Roads plans are reviewed only for those elements that are located
within the right-of-way. Lots, open space, interior landscaping, etc. are not reviewed within the
road plans. If lot lines and other items are kept in the plan views of the site, it may be helpful to
gray out those elements to indicate that they are for reference only, and not for review. Lot lines
and other elements outside of the right-of-way are reviewed at the site plan and/or subdivision plat
stages.
The accessible ramps do not always match uu as onuosite one another. especially on Bishongate
Lane between Stedham Place and Charnwood Street. The color of the sidewalk shading changes
along Bishopgate Lane at the western pocket park, across from Bishopgate Lane Ext. Is there a
reason the sidewalk becomes a different color, or is this proposed as a part of the phasing of
development? In addition, shade the sidewalk along the amenity fronts of lots 34-40.
The sidewalks and planting strips should extend along Old Trail Drive to the edges of the property
lines.
Who is proposed to own and maintain the sidewalks in the pocket parks along the front of the
amenity -oriented lots?
3. [General Comment] Please include a note on the road plans that the approval of road plans is only for
those elements within the right-of-way. Approval of road plans does not grant approval of the entire site
plan, or items outside of the right-of-way, such as parcel boundaries, open space locations, etc. Comment
addressed.
4. [General Comment] Include on the road plans some labels designating what type of street each street is,
such as public or private, as well as the proposed right-of-way width. Rev.l: Provide the right-of-way
width and the edge of pavement width for Bishopgate Lane Extended along both the main portion
of the proposed street, as well as at the turn -around. Provide the edge of pavement width for Raynor
Place and Bicknell Street.
The COD indicates that neighborhood streets have a right-of-way width of 54' and alleys have a
ROW width of 24'. Several of the neighborhood streets in this block do not have this width. In
addition, Stedham Place, the only alley proposed in this block is only 22' in width.
5. [General Comment] The label on sheet 22 for Bishopgate Lane Extended incorrectly reads "Chancery
Lane." Please fix. Comment addressed.
6. [14-234] A private street request will be required for Bishopgate Lane Extended. See 14-233 and 14-234
for the requirements, justification, and findings that will need to be made for the private street. If the
request is made outside of a subdivision application, a fee is required.
In addition, the sidewalk and planting strips will need to be extended along this street, unless an exception
or a variation to 14-422 and the application plan is requested and granted. Rev.l: The requests for a
private street for Bishopgate Lane Extended and variations to the sidewalks and planting strips
should be made with a subdivision plat, in accordance with Section 14-234 of the subdivision
ordinance. However, a subdivision plat has now been submitted for Block 32, SUB2019-00023, and
the request for private streets will be reviewed in the context of the subdivision plat as well. Please
be advised that these requests also must be approved by the Planning Commission. However, staff
has reviewed the requests in conjunction with the submitted road plans and offers the following
comments and questions:
A.) 114-233(A)(1)(i)] The designation of Bishopgate Lane Extended as a private street does
not appear to allow the neighborhood model development style to be more fully
implemented in this instance than if it were a public street. This street is not acting as
an alley or as a private street providing access to amenity -oriented lots, but is instead
acting as the main frontage for the lots on this street. Will VDOT not accept this right-
of-way as a public street for some reason?
B.) [14-233(A)(1)(ii)1 It does not appear that this private street would allow for greater
density as supported by the comprehensive plan. There is only 1, or at most 2, depending
on fire access requirements, additional lots allowed frontage by this street. However,
there are other open areas near the east side of this development that have not lots
currently proposed (near the front of Block 32 at the intersection with Old Trail Drive).
In addition, the overall density of the block has already been reduced from the
preliminary plat, with the reduction in the number of proposed lots. The one or two lots
with frontage on this proposed private street do not substantially increase the overall
density of Block 32. Please provide density numbers for Block 32 for more analysis.
C.) [14-233(A)(1)(iii)l These lots along Bishopgate Lane Ext. do not front a common
amenity, and it does not appear that they would have rear vehicular access.
D.) 114-233(A)(1)(iv)] It does not appear that a significant environmental resource would be
protected by authorizing Bishomate Lane Ext. as a private street.
E.) [14-233(A)(1)(v)l It does not appear that relegated parking would be provided by
authorizing Bishopgate Lane Ext. as a private street.
F.) [14-234(C)(1)1 As a street terminating in a vehicle turn -around and continuing on as a
limited -access fire emergency lane, there would be minimal traffic on this street.
G.) 114-234(C)(2)1 Staff acknowledges that the ZMA application plan does not show a
required public street in the vicinity of the proposed Bishopgate Lane Extended.
However, please elaborate on why a private street, as opposed to a public street, would
better allow for the density goals of the ZMA and comprehensive plan to be met in this
location. There are no other proposed private streets in Block 32 except those associated
with amenity -oriented lots, which is specifically supported by the COD. The lots with
access from Bishopgate Lane Ext are not proposed to be amenity -oriented.
H.) 114-234(C)(3)1 An easement will be needed to allow for the emergency fire access to
travel on this street, as this street is the proposed second entrance to Block 32.
L) 114-234(C)(4)1 Staff acknowledges that there will be no through -traffic on this street, as
it dead -ends at the emergency fire access lane, and only intersects with a public street
in one location.
J.) [14-234(C)(5)1 This proposed private street is not located within the Flood Hazard
Overlav District.
7. [14-234] A private street request will be required for Charnwood Street and Raylor Place. See 14-233 and
14-234 for the requirements, justification, and findings that will need to be made for the private street. If
the request is made outside of a subdivision application, a fee is required.
It appears, however, that these two streets may be intended to be alleys, as otherwise they would create
double -frontage lots that must comply with 14-401. If they are proposed to be private alleys, please label
them as such. Also, they will need to conform with the designs for alleys as shown on sheet 4 of the
Application Plan and in chapter 14 of the County Code. Rev.1: The private streets, Chancery Lane and
Bicknell Street, are in keeping with the Code of Development, as they provide access to amenity
oriented lots, page 8 of the COD. As a proposed alley, Stedham Place must conform with the design
for alleys as shown on sheet 4 of the Application Plan, and is supported by the COD.
8. [32.5.2; 32.7.9.51 The required street trees and other street landscaping should be shown on the road plans.
Also include the landscaping schedule for these plants. Rev.1: Street trees are needed within the
planting strips along Old Trail Drive. Street trees will also be needed within the planting strips of
Bishopgate Lane Ext. Street trees shall be planted with even spacing of 50' along the right-of-way,
in accordance with 32.7.9.5(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. There are several trees throughout the
development along all three public streets with street trees provided where this requirement is not
met, and where there do not appear to be sight distance easements preventing more even spacing.
There are very few street trees located along the interior blocks of Bishopgate Lane.
9. IZMA2015-000011 Please include the proffers associated with this development in the road plans.
Comment addressed.
10. [General Comment] If there is going to be on -street parking, please include those areas on the plans. Per
the Code of Development, on -street parking should be included. Rev.1: There are "no parking" signs
located on the interior sides of Bishopgate Lane. However, in the COD, on page 7, Table 3, note 1,
it says that parking should be provided on both sides of public streets. Please clarify why street
parking is not proposed for these parts of Bishopgate Lane.
11. [General Comment] Please include a note with the road plans that states the "Associated Plans" with
this project, including the project numbers, which would be SDP201800069 for the final site plan. Rev.1:
Please revise this note to include the final subdivision plat that was submitted for this project —
SUB2019-00023.
12. [General Comment] Please be advised that the second point of emergency access will be required prior
to the construction of the 31 st structure in this phase.
This proposed emergency access route appears to continue on as an as-yet-unbuilt road on a neighboring
property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Where is the connection point for this emergency access route proposed
to be? Bollards need to be placed at the entrance to the fire access lane to prevent unauthorized use
of the access way. The fire access lane will need to be platted with an easement to allow travel over
it.
13. [General Comment] Please include a note in the road plans to state that all landscaping within the rights -
of -way shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a structure in Block
32. Comment addressed.
14. [14-208.3] In order to dedicate the right-of-way for the proposed public streets, an Application For A
Special Lot must be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded. In accordance with Chapter 14, the
special lot application does not necessarily need to be approved prior to approval of the road plan
application. The applicant may submit the special lot application prior to road plan approval, after road
plan approval but prior to construction, during road construction, or after road construction. Please be
aware that any other subdividing of parcels proposing to use road frontage along the proposed public
streets will not be approved until the right-of-way is dedicated. The same goes for the approval of any
final site plans proposing uses on lots that would use frontage of the proposed public streets. Please feel
free to contact staff to further discuss timing of the right-of-way dedication. Comment still stands.
15. [ZMA2015-00001] Please include a note in the road plans to state that the roads will be designed to the
standard specified in the ZMA201500001 Code of Development and application plan. Comment
addressed.
New Comments from Submittal 2
16. The Site Data section on the cover sheet should be revised, as much of that information appears to have
changed since previous submittals with the revised site layout. Alternatively, much of that data could be
removed from the road plan, as zoning information is not reviewed with road plans and is not approved
with road plans.
17. The tables on sheet 2 with the proposed lot information and the residential unit information for Old Trail
Village as a whole should be removed, as this information does not apply to the road plans and will not
be reviewed with this plan. These items will need to be on the site plan and/or subdivision plat, however.
Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Planning Division by using areitelbachgalbemarle.org_or 434-296-5832
ext. 3261 for further information.
4