HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900023 Review Comments Final Plat 2019-04-18 (3)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 11, 2019
Nick Hutchinson
Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc.
914 Monticello Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
nhutchinsonna.roudabush. com
RE: SUB201900023 Old Trail Village, Block 32 — Final Plat
Dear Mr. Hutchinson:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial comments
from the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as
applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner)
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation
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 Plat approval.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Planning Services
434-296-5832 ext. 3261
areitelbach(c�r�,albemarle. org
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Andy Reitelbach, areitelbach&albemarle.org — Requested changes:
1. [14-301(C)] Provide match lines on all sheets of the plat to show where the sheets join.
2. [14-302(A)(5)] As the second fire access way is proposed to be Bishopgate Lane Extended, an easement
will need to be provided in that area. Show this proposed easement on sheet 2. In addition, an easement
plat and deed will need to be recorded for the entirety of the fire access travelway, including where it
extends off of the Block 32 property.
3. [14-302(A)(8)] Include the number of proposed lots on the cover sheet of the plat.
4. [14-302(A)(9)] Revise the zoning ordinance section in note #2 to say 4.2.1.
5. [14-302(A)(9)] Show building sites of an adequate size for lots 1, 7, 15, and 40. These lots are more
narrow at the front of the lots, and sight distance easements reduce the size of buildable areas on these
lots even more. There is also a 25' maximum setback line.
6. [14-302(A)(13)] Please show the location of all proposed drainage and stormwater management
facilities and related improvements. Deeds of dedication may be needed if any of these easements will
be dedicated to public use.
7. [14-302(A)(14)] Provide the acreage of land to be dedicated to either the County or to the Old Trail
HOA on the cover sheet of the plat. On the plat, label whether lands are proposed to be dedicated to the
Old Trail HOA, the County, or another agency, such as ACSA.
8. [14-302(A)(15)] There are easements shown extending onto neighboring properties. The owners of
these properties will also have to sign the plat, and include additional signature panels. In addition,
include these parcels in the site data information on the cover sheet, along with names and addresses of
the property owners.
Include the names and addresses of all existing easement holders for easements on this property.
9. [14-302(B)(1)] Include the date of the last revision on future submittals of the plat.
10. [14-302(B)(5)] Include "Steep Slopes — Managed" in the overlay districts on the cover sheet, as there
are small areas of managed steep slopes on this property.
In addition, in the zoning information on the cover sheet, include the variation for this property that
was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 2019, allowing for the reduction of the water
protection ordinance (WPO) buffer in certain areas of this property. Include the conditions of the
variation on the plat.
11. [14-302(B)(6)] Provide the name(s) of the property owner, the deed book and page numbers, and the
TMP number for all parcels adjacent to Block 32, on both sheet 2 and on the subdivision plat sheets.
12. [14-302(B)(10)] Depict on this plat the WPO stream buffers that are located on this property.
13. [14-303(D)] Revise the acreage amounts on the cover sheet for the rights -of -way and the lots. Adding
together the acreage of the 92 lots amounts to 12.666 acres, versus the 12.652 acres shown on the cover
sheet. Please verify the total acreage of the lots. (I recognize that this discrepancy could be due to
rounding issues.)
14. [14-303(D)] The acreage of the rights -of -way on the cover sheets says 4.773 acres. However, adding
together the acreage of the rights -of -way comes to 8.061 acres. Bishopgate Lane has two areas with
acreage labelled on the plat — one says 3.333 acres and one says 3.345 acres — so this may be where the
discrepancy comes from.
15. [14-303(E)] Where are curves C100 and C 10 1 located? C99 is at the end of Bishopgate Lane Ext. and
C 102 is between lots 86 and 87; however, I do not see C 100 and C 101.
16. [14-303(F)] Will this plat be phased in any way? The associated road plans for this block propose two
phases.
17. [14-303(G)] Identify on the plat the intended owners of all common area parcels, including the pocket
parks, the open green spaces, and the private streets. Are the private rights -of -way intended to be
easements or fee simple?
18. [14-303(Q)] Please include a statement as to whether the proposed subdivision will be served by a
public water and sewer system.
19. [14-302(A)(4) and 14-3171 An instrument/maintenance agreement evidencing maintenance of all
improvements and easements that will be owned by the HOA will be needed before approval of the
final plat. The maintenance agreement will need to specifically mention who is responsible for
maintenance of improvements. The Old Trail Community Association, Inc. (if this is the correct
organization maintaining the private improvements), will need to sign the maintenance agreement, and
this will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and recorded with the County Clerk
at the same time as the final plat.
20. [14-422] Please provide a note regarding landscaping and sidewalks on Sheet 1 that states that street
trees and sidewalks will be provided in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Ordinance
and are shown on the road plans for Old Trail Village Block 32, SUB201800164.
21. [ZMA2015-00001] Label the proposed affordable units on the plat, in accordance with proffer #2 of
the ZMA.
22. [ZMA2015-00001] Include a table in the plat showing the numbers of affordable units for all blocks of
the Old Trail development, so that staff can determine the percentage of affordable units in the
development to this point.
23. [ZMA2015-00001] Include a table in the plat showing the acreage of pocket parks and green space for
all blocks of the Old Trail development, so that staff can determine the percentage of parks and green
space in the development to this point.
24. [ZMA2015-00001] Note #20 on the cover sheet identifies open space 22-4 as a pocket park. However,
no 22-4 is labelled on the plat sheets. Please identify the pocket parks on the plat sheets.
25. [General Comment] On sheet 2 of the plat, there appears to be a label for Charnwood Street floating
in the middle of the subject parcel, with no other identifying information. This may be an extra layer
turned on. Please remove this label, or provide clarification for its existence.
26. [General Comment] Site plan(s) will be required for the attached units.
27. [General Comment] Clarify the types of housing units proposed for the lots, as there are different
requirements for different types of lots. I believe lots 34-40 are attached single-family (townhouse)
units. All other lots appear to be for detached single-family. However, lots 81-92 do not show side
setback lines, suggesting attached units, although they meet the size requirements for single-family
detached.
28. [General Comment] The road plan for this block must be approved before final approval of the final
plat can be granted. In addition, the WPO plan and the ACSA utility plan must also be approved before
approval of the final plat.
29. [Code of Development] The widths of several streets do not meet the requirements as shown in the
street sections in the Code of Development. This issue will be resolved with the road plan; however,
the final plat must match what is included on the approved final road plan.
30. [14-306, 14-233, 14-2341 Bishopgate Lane Extended has not been approved as a private street;
however, a request has been submitted to the County for this street to be allowed as a private street,
which is still under review. (See 14-233 and 14-234 for the requirements, justification, and findings
that will need to be made for the private street.) Please see below for comments regarding the private
street request for Bishopgate Lane Extended:
A.) [14-233(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.
B.) [14-233(A)(1)(ii)] 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)] 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.) [14-233(A)(1)(iv)] It does not appear that a significant environmental resource would
be protected by authorizing Bishopgate Lane Ext. as a private street.
E.) [14-233(A)(1)(v)] It does not appear that relegated parking would be provided by
authorizing Bishopgate Lane Ext. as a private street.
F.) [14-234(C)(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.) [14-234(C)(2)] 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.) [14-234(C)(3)] 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.
1.) [14-234(C)(4)] 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)] This proposed private street is not located within the Flood Hazard
Overlay District.
Comments from Other Reviewers:
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — Emily Cox, ecoxkalbemarle.org — Requested changes:
1. Provide matchlines for sheets.
2. Note that nothing can be built in sight distance easements. For example, check Lot 40.
3. Easements will need deeds. Engineering can provide the SWM facility easement deed. Note that this will also
need a SWM Maintenance agreement which will be processed with the WPO Plan.
4. Easements should say public or private. If public, should say dedicated to public use.
5. Road plan and WPO Plan must be approved and bonded before this subdivision plat can be approved.
6. Ensure ROW widths match the road plan.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Andrew Walker, aslack(&albemarle.org — No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellinger&albemarle.org — Requested changes:
1. Add the following note to the general notes page:
ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection
performed by the building department.
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox, smaddoxkalbemarle.org — Requested changes:
1. I do not see the second emergency access on this plat, it needs to be added. SNM.
Albemarle County Service Authority — Richard Nelson, rnelsonnserviceauthority.org — Requested changes:
1. The final site plan of Old Trail Block 32 is under review. Any changes in easements from site plan
comments should be made for SUB-2019-00023 Old Trail Village Block 32 — Final.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Justin Deel, justin.deelgvdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested Changes;
please see the attached memo.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. Culpeper Virginia 22701
Commissioner
March 26, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Old Trail Village Block 32— Final Plat
SUB-2019-00023
Review #1
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Roudabush, Gale, &
Associates, dated 1 February 2019, and offers the following comments:
1. The Department does not recommend approval of the final plat until the road plans,
which are currently under review, are approved
2. Streets intended to be made public must be decided to the County for Public Use, not just
to "Public Use". Please add a note that reflects this and correct the callouts on the plat
sheets.
3. Please add a note stating that sight distance easements are dedicated to public use and
shall be kept clear of visual obstructions, including but not limited to fences, structures,
and landscaping.
4. Also add a note stating that VDOT will only maintain within drainage easements to the
extent necessary to protect the roadway from flooding or damage.
Please provide a copy of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Dee] 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,
Adam J. M re, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING