Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900003 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-05-22COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5832 Memorandum To: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering (scott@collins-engineering.com) Riverbend Development (alan@riverbenddev.com) From: Mariah Gleason Division: Community Development — Planning Date: May 22, 2019 Subject: SDP201900003 Foothill Crossing V — Final Site Plan Review Comment Letter #2 The final site plan referred to above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC). The Planner will approve the final site plan when the following items (from the Planner and from other SRC plan reviewers) have been satisfactorily addressed and when all SRC plan reviewers have indicated in writing their tentative approvals. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [32.4.3.6] Changes in this resubmittal were made outside of those requested by plan reviewers. If such changes continue to be made in future resubmittals, this application may be denied. 2. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] The lot configuration has changed in this submittal. This change was not requested, however, since it has been done, residual areas between Lots 16&17, 28&29, behind Lots 29-30, and the area where the connection to the Crozet Park walkway is placed, all need to be labeled "Open Space," with their subsequent acreages provided. 3. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(b)] The change mentioned in comment #2 impacted the overall acreages noted on the cover sheet. Review and revise accordingly as some of these acreages appear to be off. 4. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n), 14-422] The location of the planting strip and sidewalk along the north side of Indigo Rd, between Lots 22 and 23, has flipped. This change was not requested. Show the previous configuration, as it was approved in the subdivision plat and initial site plan. 5. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] Remove ALL subdivision lots shown on TMP 56-77B 1 and 56-57132. There is no subdivision plat approving those lots. 6. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Regarding the new emergency accessway: a. Revise the weight bearing capacity of the emergency accessway. It is currently indicated as "85 ounces". Revise to reference tons. b. See comment #5. Currently the plans show the emergency accessway going through a house. c. As the accessway is being provided on and to a neighboring parcel, the owner of the lot will need to agree to this infrastructure. Please submit evidence verifying this agreement. d. The accessway will need to demonstrate that it is tying into existing facilities or approved planned facilities. 7. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] The trailway connecting this phase with other Foothill Crossing development phases, that was approved in the previous subdivision plat and initial site plan, was removed in this resubmittal. Show this trail. (Note: Terminate the proposed trailway in such a way that it indicates a tie-in to future development (consider a note or using dashed lines)). 8. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3] Provide sidewalks on the south side of Indigo Road or provide evidence that the development can utilize, and connect to, the pedestrian path located in Claudius Crozet Park as a substitute. If the path will be used to satisfy the sidewalk requirement, the County may require improvements be made to it. 9. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Provide copies of off -site easements or letters of intent to grant access from off -site property owners to confirm that required elements of this development will be possible. (See comments 6, 7, and 8) 10. [WRPA Ordinance] The stream buffer measures less than 100ft. The label indicates the buffer width as 100ft on either side of the stream location, for a combined width of 200ft, however, scaling it out on the plans, the total buffer width in some areas is 20ft short of the expected 200ft. Please review and revise accordingly. 11. [32.6.2(1), 4.16] Per Sec 4.16.1, 6,200sf of recreational facilities are required for this development (200sf x 3lunits = 6,200sf). The proposed tot lot is 4,450sf. (Note: Also, the tot lot must provide two (2) climbers. The plan currently proposes a single climber.) To get to the 6,200sf required, increase the size of the tot lot OR provide the size AND justification for using the existing wooded area as a passive recreation area (see Sec. 4.16.1) 12. [32.6.20), 32.7.9.4(b)] Since the existing wooded area is being used to meet the tree canopy requirement: a. Remove the emergency accessway area from the existing tree canopy calculation. b. The plan will need to depict the limits of clearing and where protective fencing will be placed to preserve wooded areas. c. The conservation checklist will need to be signed before the final plat can be approved. 13. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] There appear to be several different titles for this plan on the cover sheet. Correct/align the following: a. The main heading indicates this plan as "Phase VI" of the Foothill Crossing development. Amend the title to "Phase V" (consistent with the previously approved subdivision and initial site plan for this parcel). b. The title block indicates this plan as the "VSMP Plan". Revise to "Final Site Plan". c. The revisions list indicates this resubmittal as a response to VSMP Plan comments. Revise. d. Revise the "Road Plan Sheet List" table heading. This is not the Road Plan. 14. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(a)] The last sheet is referenced as Sheet 13 in the table of contents but Sheet 5A on the individual page. Align sheet names. 15. [32.6.2(h)] Increase the length of the signature panel to accommodate reviewer signatures. 16. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(r)] Indicate what the small and large crosshatched patterns on Sheet 2 represent. As a general note, please label or identify all patterns and symbols used on the plan. 17. [32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(n)] Review the notations on Sheet 3 to ensure callouts are pointing to the intended lines and/or areas. Currently the proposed right-of-way callout on Lot 22 is indicating an area as both part of the right-of-way and part of the lot area. Also, a few arrows are missing labels. If you have questions about which areas, we can discuss this over the phone or in a meeting. 18. [Comment] Signs shown on the plan are not approved with this final site plan application. Signs are approved by a separate application. Other SRC Reviewers: Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Matthew Wentland, mwentlandgalbemarle.org 19. An approved WPO submittal will be required before site plan approval. 20. An approved road plan submittal will be required before site plan approval. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Andrew Walker, awalkergalbemarle.org — No Objection Albemarle County Building Inspections Michael Dellinger, mdellinger(a)albemarle.org — No Objection Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Shawn Maddox, smaddoxkalbemarle.org —No Objection Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Nelson, rnelson(a)serviceauthority.org 21. Submit 3 copies to ACSA for review. Virginia Department of Transportation Adam Moore, adam.mooregvdot.vir ig nia.gov — PENDING; comments will be forwarded upon receipt. Please contact Mariah Gleason in the Planning Division by using mgleasongalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for further information.