HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800069 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-06-28County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Jeremy L. Fox, P.E. (jfox(&roudabush.com)
From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: June 28, 2019
Subject: SDP2018-00069 — Old Trail Village Block 32 — Final Site Plan; 2"d Review
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will
recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items 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.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County
Code.]
New Comments — 2nd Review of Block 32 Final Site Plan (SDP2018-00069):
1. [General Comment] Please revise this final site plan to reflect what is approved in the road plan for this block,
SUB2018-00164, including the removal of Bishopgate Lane Ext.
2. [General Comment] Block 32 is now being proposed to be developed in two phases. Please revise this final site plan to
reflect the phased development of Block 32.
3. [General Comment] Revise the numbering of the sheets for this site plan. There are several sheets indicated on the
cover sheet that are no longer in this plan. Remove them from the sheet index. In addition, the numbering of the sheets
that are included is incorrect. For example, there are two sheets 37s.
4. [General Comment] There are notes on the cover sheet of this plan that discuss the road plans. As this is the final site
plan, and not the road plan, these notes should not be included. In addition, the road plan sheets are included in this
document. Because road plans are a separate document, remove them from this plan.
[General Comment] The easternmost row of lots, between the loop of Bishopgate Lane, do not appear to have any
information depicting what they are. Based on lot size, they should be single family -attached units; however, the details
of the site, including driveways, setbacks, sidewalks, landscaping, etc., are not shown on the site plan.
Comments from 1st Review of SDP2018-00069:
1. [General Comment] The road plans are approved separately and should be a document separate from the site plan and
other plans. Please remove the road plans from the final site plan document. Similarly, site plan documents should not
be included in future submittals of road plans. Road plans must be approved prior to final site plans.
2. [General Comment; 32.5.2(c)] Site plans are for attached homes only. Single-family detached (SFD) homes require the
approval of a preliminary subdivision plat, as well as a final subdivision plat. Although the initial site plan included the
single-family attached (SFA) homes in the overall plan, it appears that now the single-family attached homes in Block
32 are proposed for later phases although the lots are currently shown on the plan. Please clarify the proposed phasing
of the development of Block 32, as the use and calculations on the cover sheet and sheet 2 table may need to be revised.
If the SFA homes are not included in this plan, the individual lots for those units should not be shown at this time.
Phasing of the SFA homes may require a site plan amendment in the future.
3. [32.5.2 (a)] Include a copy of the proffers that were approved in association with ZMA2015-00001.
4. [32.5.2 (a)] Please include a note that states the "Associated Plans" for this plan, including the road plans.
5. [General Comment] There is a discrepancy in the number of proposed units. The table on sheet 2 and the parking
schedule on the cover sheet state there are 107 proposed units, with 73 single-family detached units. However, the
proposed use on the cover sheet and the site layout plans have only 106 units, with 72 single-family detached.
6. [General Comment] The parking schedule on the cover sheet has a different unit count than the statement of the
proposed use — 73 vs. 72 SFD homes. Please revise.
7. [32.5.2(n); COD] The parking schedule on the cover sheet indicates that there are four (4) parking spaces proposed for
each SFA home. Please indicate where these spaces are proposed on the plan. Is there on -street parking proposed to
account for some of these parking spaces? If so, it appears there may not be enough right-of-way. The cross -sections in
the Code of Development for neighborhood streets shown right-of-way as 54 feet wide, to include sidewalks, planting
strips, travel lane, and parking spaces. The public rights -of -way shown on the plan are only 48' wide, which leaves little
area for on -street parking.
Please also be advised that driveways must be deep enough so that automobiles parked in them do not hang over the
sidewalk and other parts of the right-of-way.
8. [32.7.81 If outdoor lighting is proposed, a lighting plan meeting the requirements of 32.7.8 of the zoning chapter should
be included.
9. [32.7.71 Recreational facilities meeting the requirements of section 32.7.7 should be included in the plan. Although such
facilities are not required for single-family detached homes, they are required for the single-family attached homes.
10. [Code of Development (COD)] Include on the cover sheet or on sheet 2 the percentage of the site that will be open
space or green space. Also include how this green space relates to the requirements of proffer #1 in the Proffer Statement
approved with ZMA2015-00001.
11. [General Comment] Near the bottom middle of sheet 2, there is a note that states "Lot Area:", with nothing after it.
Please revise.
12. [General Comment] The table on sheet 2 has a different number of proposed units than what is stated on the cover
sheet. Please revise. In addition, the designated affordable units will need to be shown on the plan.
13. [General Comment] On sheet 3, there is a label on one of the steep slope areas that just says "denotes." Please clarify
what it is denoting.
14. [General Comment] On the existing conditions sheets, there are labels for "new open green space easements." It appears
that these easements are proposed as part of the development and do not currently exist. If this is the case, please remove
them from the existing conditions sheets. Instead, they should be shown on the proposed plan and landscape plan sheets.
15. [General Comment] According to the County's GIS maps, there are a few small areas of managed steep slopes on this
property. It appears that they are shown on the existing conditions sheet but are labelled as preserved steep slopes. Please
revise. However, the large areas of steep slopes appear to be correctly labelled as preserved.
16. [ZMA201500001, COD] The proposed residential lots cannot encroach into the stream buffers, per the Code of
Development. Please reconfigure the lots. If they are not reconfigured, a special exception will be required in order to
allow encroachment. In addition, the proposed green space easements should not extend into the lots.
17. [14-234] A private street request is required for Bishopgate Lane Extended, as there are lots taking access from this road
and it is not strictly for emergency access. Private streets must meet the criteria for approval in 14-234(C)(4), and please
see 14-234 for requirements, justification, and findings that are necessary. If the request is made outside of a subdivision
application, a fee is required.
18. [COD] Planting strips and sidewalks need to be provided on both sides of Bishopgate Lane Extended, unless a variation
or exception is requested and approved.
19. [General Comment] Please label the open space areas with their size.
20. [General Comment] Please label all open space areas as such.
21. [General Comment] In the label for sidewalks and planting strips overlaying Lot 2, please include the pavement
material.
22. [General Comment] Please indicate where the proposed emergency fire access road will go. It appears to cross onto
another property that is not a part of this Block or within the Old Trail development line as a whole. Where is the
emergency fire access proposed to connect? There do not appear to be any public or private streets nearby on the adjacent
property. In addition, an easement will be required for the emergency fire access road to cross the other property. Will
the emergency fire access cross a stream or go through any stream buffers?
23. [General Comment] Bollards will be required at the entrance to the emergency access road to prevent general use of
this route. With Bishopgate Lane Extended extending to the property line, the bollards should be placed at the property
line where the right-of-way turns into the emergency access road.
24. [General Comment] On sheets 7 and 8 of the plan, there is a large area shaded gray on the left side of each sheet. Please
identify what this shaded area is.
25. [General Comment] There is a trail shown on the existing conditions sheets along the waterways; however, this trail is
not shown on the proposed plan sheets. Is this trail being retained in the development of this block, or is it being removed?
Please clarify.
26. [32.5.2(c)] If the single-family attached homes are a part of this phase of development, the structures and driveways
should be shown on the plans to ensure setbacks, parking, and other requirements can be met and there is a calculable
total for impervious surface. If they are not proposed to be included, the individual lot lines should not be shown at this
time.
27. [14-234; COD] There are several streets labelled as private right-of-way, with sidewalks and planting strips; however,
these streets are creating double -frontage lots. Any double -frontage lots would have to comply with section 14-401 of
the Albemarle County subdivision ordinance. In addition, private street requests and approvals would be required. Private
streets must meet the criteria for approval in 14-234(C)(4), and please see 14-234 for requirements, justification, and
findings that are necessary. If the request is made outside of a subdivision application, a fee is required.
Are these private streets perhaps proposed to be alleys? If so, they do not have to meet the requirements of private streets
and double -frontage lots. However, they should be labelled as alleys, not as private streets, and meet the requirements
for alleys. Also, cross -sections for alleys are shown in the Code of Development. Alleys should be approximately 24
feet wide, not the proposed 44 feet wide that is shown on the plan, which is almost as wide as the proposed streets. If
they are alleys, driveways/access should be from the alleys, not the public right-of-way in the front of the lots.
28. [General Comment] The steep slopes, WPO buffers, and floodplain overlay should be shown on all sheets of the
proposed plans.
29. [General Comment] Is there a street sign proposed for the intersection of Old Trail Drive and Bishopgate Lane? It does
not appear that one is shown on the plan.
30. [COD] The garages and driveways shown on the plans do not appear to provide enough room or be setback in accordance
with the Code of Development. Garages are to be located at the rear of lots, with access from alleys or private streets.
Where no rear access is available, front -loading access is permitted; however, garages must be set back at least three (3)
feet from the primary or principal line of the front fagade of the house. Parking pads must be built so that there is no
overhang of cars onto the sidewalks and other portions of the right-of-way. See pages 8-10 of the COD for parking and
garage requirements.
31. [32.7.91 In the landscape plan, on sheet 27, there must be street trees and planting strips along both sides of Bishopgate
Lane Extended. Revise the planting schedule on sheet 30 to include these additional street trees.
32. 132.7.91 In the landscape plan, please more clearly label the sight distance and utility easement lines along the open space
and Lot 5 in the block surrounded by Chancery Lane, Bishopgate Lane, and the large open space area.
33. [32.7.91 The steep slopes, WPO buffers, and floodplain overlay should be shown on all sheets of the landscape plan.
34. [32.7.91 On the landscape plan, street trees are also required along both sides of the private streets shown on the plan.
4
35. [32.7.9] Revise the street tree calculations, the plan schedule, and the tree canopy calculations to include the required
street trees along the private street rights -of -way.
36. [32.7.91 For the tree saving bonus of the landscape plan, a conservation checklist is required to be completed and
submitted. The Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be signed by the owners and provided as an exhibit on
the final site plan.
37. [32.5.2(k)] Please show the location of all proposed sewer and drainage easements. Label as "proposed" with a size/width
measurement.
38. [32.5.2(1)] Please show the location of all proposed utility easements. Label as "proposed" with a size/width
measurement.
Comments from SDP2017-00079 — Old Trail Village Block 32 Initial Site Plan Action
Letter:
The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2017-00079 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the
review of the final site plan, SDP2018-00069, are in bolded black font.
[32.2] Site plans are not required for single family detached homes. The initial approval of this site plan is for the attached
units only. A preliminary subdivision plat that requires Site Review will be required for the single family detached units/lots.
See end of this email for comments that related to the single family detached lots. Please note, a full subdivision review has
not been completed, and therefore additional comments will be provided during that review. Please note that a final
subdivision plat will be required for the single-family detached houses, at which time a full review of those lots will
occur. A full subdivision review has not occurred at this time, and additional comments may be provided during the
review of the subdivision plat regarding the requirements of single-family lots. Site plans for single-family houses are
reviewed at the time of application for building permits for those houses.
2. [14-234] Private street request is required for Road A (portion). The portion of Road A that is designated as private does not
meet the criteria for approval in 14-234(C)(4). See 14-234 for the requirements, justification and finding that will need to be
made for the private streets. If the request is made outside of a subdivision application, a fee is required. Although Road A
appears to have been revised to public right-of-way, Bishopgate Lane Extended is shown as private, and will need to
have a private street request, as there are lots with frontage on this street. If this request is made outside of a
subdivision application, a fee is required.
In addition, there are several other streets designated as private right-of-way. Are these proposed to be private streets
or alleys? If private streets, they will need to meet the criteria of 41-234(C)(4) and private street requests will need to
be made.
3. Variation from 14-422 that requires the location of the planting strip be between the curb and the sidewalk as well as sidewalk
on both sides of the street is required for Road A (private street portion). Please submit justifications that addresses the criteria
below that are located in 14-203.1 and 14-422. Please note the findings that staff will comment on for the staff report, if you
wish to address how your variation meets these findings, that would be helpful. As currently designed, staff would not be able
to support the exception as a quick review, the findings cannot be met. The fee for the variation and exception is $892.
Application can be found here. Sidewalks and planting strips will be required for Bishopgate Lane Extended, as this is
proposed as a private street with lots having frontage on the street. Otherwise, an exception will be required to be
granted.
4. A variation from the application plan is also required, as sheet 4 of the application plan shows the street section with the
planting strip and sidewalk locations, which you will need to vary. See below for the findings that staff will need to make
with this request. The fee for this request is $457. Application can be found here. A variation from the application plan will
also be required if sidewalks and planting strips are not provided along Bishopgate Lane Extended, as shown in the
street cross -sections of the approved application plan.
5. [32.5.2(a); ZMA Application Plan] Show the stream buffer on the site layout and landscape plan sheets. Also, show the
conservation/preservation areas per the ZMA. Show the stream buffer on the landscape plan sheets.
6. [ZMA COD] Adjust those lots impacting the stream buffer. Per the code of development, no lots shall be located in the buffer.
There are a number of lots that continue to be located partially within the stream buffer, which is not allowed per the
Code of Development. Please move those lots so that they are no longer within the buffer. An exception will be required
if the lots are proposed to remain within the buffer.
7. [32.5.2(p)] Street trees should be provided in the open space where it does not conflict with utilities and site distance.
Comment addressed.
8. [32.5.2(p)] Street trees should be provided on both sides of the street. If there are conflicts with utilities and site di, 'nce, they
should be provided within and easement on the lot. Street trees should be provided in planting strips along Bishopgate
Lane Extended.
9. [32.5.2(p)] Street trees should be provided along private streets. See comment above - street trees should be provided in
planting strips along Bishopgate Lane Extended. Street trees should also be provided along the other streets designated
as private right-of-way, unless they are alleys. However, those rights -of -way should be labelled as alleys.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the sizes on the plan sheets of each of the open space areas. Also, label all of the open space areas on the
plan sheets. Comment not addressed. Please provide labels on all open space areas that also include the size of the area.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Provide a table that shows all the blocks that have been approved and the types of units, with totals provided. The
number of units for this block included in the table does not match the number actually shown on the plan. Please
revise. Also, this site plan does not appear to include the single-family attached houses, which are labelled as "future
blocks." If the single-family attached homes are not a part of this site plan, then they should not be included in the
table at this time.
12. [ZMA Proffers] Affordable housing is required for the proffers. Indicate on the plan which units will be affordable. This
comment has not been addressed. The table indicates that there are affordable units planned for this block; however,
none is labelled on the plan.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Show the dimensions for the driveways, sidewalks, and planting strips. Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Note the paving material for the driveways, sidewalks, and planting strips. Include the paving material in the
label, for the sidewalk, overlaying proposed Lot 2 on the plan.
15. [32.5.2(n)] It appears that some sort of access is located between Lots 29 and 30. Label what this is along with the dimension
and material. If this is emergency access, it should include bollards. It appears that the emergency fire access is proposed
6
to be a private street up to the property line, at which point it will become just the emergency access. If this is the case,
a private street request will need to be submitted, and sidewalks and planting strips will need to be included on both
sides of the street, unless a variation or exception is requested. In addition, bollards will need to be provided where the
private street ends.
In addition, more information needs to be provided on the location of the emergency fire access road, as it will cross
another property that is not included in this block. Where is the fire access road proposed to connect? The parcel it is
connecting to appears to be a largely undeveloped, rural parcel. Will it cross any streams or pass through any stream
buffers? An easement will be required for the emergency fire access road to cross the adjacent property.
16. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the amount of imperious on the site. This comment has not been addressed. Please include the amount
of impervious surface proposed on the site on the cover sheet.
17. [32.5.2 (b)] The setbacks listed are incorrect per the current COD for this block. Front min: 5' Front max: 25' Side: S' Rear:
5' Comment addressed.
Comments relating to Single Family Detached units and roads:
18. [14-234] Private street requests are required for Roads G, E, and A (portion). The portion of Road A that is designated as
private does not meet the criteria for approval in 14- 234(C)(4). See 14-234 for the requirements, justification and finding that
will need to be made for the private streets. If the request is made outside of a subdivision application a fee is required. A
private street request will be required for Bishopgate Lane Extended, as there are lots taking access from this proposed
right-of-way.
19. Variation from 14-422 that requires the location of the planting strip be between the curb and the sidewalk as well as sidewalk
on both sides of the street is required for Road A (private street portion). Also, an exception from planting strips and sidewalks
on both sides of the street for Roads G and E is required. Please submit justifications that addresses the criteria below that are
located in 14-203.1 and 14-422. Please note the findings that staff will comment on for the staff report, if you wish to address
how your variation meets these findings, that would be helpful. As currently designed, staff would not be able to support the
exception as a quick review, the findings can not be met. The fee for the variation and exception is $892. Application can be
found here. An exception will be required if sidewalks and planting strips are not provided along both sides of the
Bishopgate Lane Extended right-of-way.
20. A variation from the application plan is also required, as sheet 4 of the application plan shows the street section with the
planting strip and sidewalk locations, which you will need to vary. See below for the findings that staff will need to make
with this request. The fee for this request is $457. Application can be found here. A variation of the application plan will
be required if sidewalks and planting strips are not provided along both sides of the Bishopgate Lane Extended right-
of-way, as the street section shows these as integral parts of the right-of-way.
21. [ZMA COD] Adjust those lots impacting the stream buffer. Per the code of development, no lots shall be located in the buffer.
The lots must be removed from encroaching into the stream buffer; otherwise, an exception will be required to be
granted.
22. [32.5.2(p); ZMA COD] Street trees should be provided in the open space where it does not conflict with utilities and site
distance Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(p); ZMA COD] Street trees should be provided on both sides of the street. If there are conflicts with utilities and site
distance, they should be provided within and easement on the lot. Street trees should be provided in planting strips along
Bishopgate Lane Extended.
Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbach&albemarle.org or 434-
296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — Emily Cox, ecox2kalbemarle.org — Requested Changes;
please see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Andy Slack, aslackgalbemarle.org — Requested Changes; please
see below:
1) All of the road names are available and meet the standards for Albemarle County Road Naming and Property
Numbering Ordinance and Manual, however, I do recommend having an alternative road name for'Bishopgate
Lane Ext.' It would be less confusing for emergency response if the road name was more distinctive. An option
to use would be 'Bishopgate Place' while still meeting the requirements set forth in the manual.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — No objection.
Albemarle County Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox, smaddox&albemarle.org — Requested Changes; please see below:
1) Please confirm that there will be no parking on:
1. Bicknell Street
2. Raynor Place
3. Charnwood Street
Albemarle County Service Authority —Richard Nelson, melson&serviceauthority.org — No objection.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore, Adam.Mooregvdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested Changes;
please see the attached memo.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Megan Nedostup
Andy Reitelbach (Rev. 1)
From: Emily Cox
Date: 28 September 2018
Rev. 1: 04 June 2019
Subject: Old Trail Village -Block 32 - FSP (SDP201800069)
The final site plan for Old Trail Block 32 has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments will
need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1:
WP020180077 has been approved.
2. Road Plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1:
SUB201800164 must be approved before FSP can be approved.
3. VDOT approval and entrance permits are necessary before plan approval. Rev. 1:
Comment still valid.
4. Remove road profiles and details. They should be shown on the road plan application.
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Road profiles and details should be on the road
plan application. There is no way to verify if they match. Also the road plan is not
approved yet.
5. Per the stormwater management section of the Code of Development, residential lots shall
not be permitted within stream buffers. Please remove lots from stream buffers. Rev. 1:
Please reference the date of the variation approval on the plans (march 6, 2019).
Also, reference the master mitigation plan. It was engineering's understanding that
the buffer was changed to 75' and removed out of the lots. It should be shown this
way.
6. Provide approved floodplain development permit. Rev. 1: FDP201800018 is
administratively approved. Is there a CLOMR or LOMR?
7. Ensure floodplain and stream buffer are clearly shown on all sheets. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
8. Provide a reference note with the title and approval date of the preserved slopes exhibit.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. Grading should be kept at 3:1 wherever possible. However, ensure that no grades are
steeper than 2:1. Rev. 1: Please revise note. The County does not recommend crown
vetch. Steep slope grass seed or other vegetation that can withstand steep slopes is
sufficient.
10. The only allowed disturbance to the stream buffer as shown in the ZMA is located at the
entrance along Old Trail Drive and the connection/fire rescue road. Rev. 1: Please
reference the approved master mitigation plan and the WPO Plan for an buffer
disturbance.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
11. Provide the tree conservation checklist:
htip://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/fonns_center/departments/Community_Develop
ment/forms/applications/Conservation_ Plan_Checklist.pdf Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. Clearly show all parking spaces, including garages. Sidewalk area cannot count as parking
area. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Only a few garages were shown on sheet 13.
13. There is clearing & grading shown offsite. Please provide permission to perform this land
disturbance.Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. Provide match line at western end of site. The limits of this work area unclear. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
15. Contours should not be shown going through houses. Slopes between houses should not
be steeper than 3:1. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed.
16. Biolfilters should not be labeled as "future". They should match the WPO Plan. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
17. Check that all storm drain profiles match calculations. Example: profile from 3A to 3
shows 13% while calculations show 14.83%. Rev. 1: Ensure all calculations match the
plan. For example, inlets 8B and 9B DA in the inlet comps do not appear to match
the plan sheet.
18. Maximum allowable velocity in storm drains is 15ft/s. Please revise. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
19. Recommend tree save areas to be outside of lot lines. Ensure tree save areas match up with
tree protection in all WPO plans (overlot grading and VSMP). Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Show TP fencing from WPO Plan or remove tree save area from lots. It
is going to be in an easement?
20. Rev. 1: [Sheet 101 What is the Block 32 offsite water extension plan? Please reference
the plan #.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Guipeper Virg�nla 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
June 25, 2019
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Old Trail Village Block 32— Final Site Plan
SDP-2018-00069
Review #2
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, signed 23 ApriI 2019, and offers the following comment:
• The Road Plan for this site (SUB201800164) was approved via email correspondence on
14 June 2019. This particular revision of the Site Plan does not reflect changes associated
with previous reviews and subsequent approval of the Road Plan.
Please provide a copy 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,
�1 &4v, qdm'-',
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING