Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900137 Review Comments Final Plat 2019-11-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 November 8, 2019 Nick Hutchinson Roudabush, Gale and Associates, Inc. 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 nhutchinson@roudabush.com RE: SUB201900137 Old Trail Village Block 32 Phase 2 — 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. [14-302(A)(3)] There is an extra label for Bishopgate Lane on sheet 5 south of Lott 77 that does not appear to belong there, as that section of the street has not yet been dedicated. Provide the width of Route 250 and the legal reference information for this road on the easement plat sheet, sheet 3. Revise note #18. This note applies to Phase 1, not Phase 2. Include the correct streets being dedicated. 2. [14-302(A)(5)] As the second fire access way is proposed to be "Bishopgate Lane Extended" from the edge of Block 32 to Bishopgate Lane, an easement will need to be provided in that area. An easement deed will need to be recorded for the entirety of the fire access travelway, including where it extends from Bishopgate Lane, down toward Route 250. The proposed public stormwater drainage and facility easements need to be called out as being dedicated to the County for public use. A deed of easement will be required to be approved and recorded along with this plat for those facilities. There is an easement called out on sheet 2 as being owned by the County (northeast portion of the property parallel to Old Trail Drive); however, it is identified as an ACSA water line easement, which means it is owned by ACSA. Please revise. 3. [14-302(A)(9)] Demonstrate 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 to consider. 4. [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. 5. [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. The acreage appears to be slightly off, as the cover sheet says that the residue for phase 2 is 12.411 acres, while it is identified as 12.413 on sheet 2. 6. [14-302(A)(15)] Additional owners will need to be listed on the cover sheet of the plat, to include the owner(s) of the parcels over which the emergency access easement traverses, as well as the parcel to the west of Block 32 that is involved in the boundary line adjustment with "Parcel X." There are also storm drainage easements that cross onto adjacent parcels, and the owners of these parcels will also need to be listed on the plat. 7. [14-302(B)(1)] Include the date of the last revision on future submittals of the plat. 8. [14-302(B)(5)] Include the RA, Rural Areas zoning district on the cover sheet, as portions of this plat, such as the emergency access easement, also cross into this zoning district. Also include the applicable zoning information for the additional parcels that need to be shown on this plat, as stated in comments 6 and 9. 9. [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. In addition, this information will need to be provided on sheet 3 for those parcels that are crossed by the emergency access easement. In addition, on the cover sheet, as a part of the parcel data, the other parcels that are a part of this plat need to be included. These parcels include 55E-01-32-A, 55E-01-22-A, 55-103F, and 55E-01 R. These parcels either have proposed easements traversing them on are involved in the boundary line adjustment with Parcel X. Also, the parcel number as stated in the parcel data on the cover sheet does not match that included in the owner's approval. 10. [14-302(B)(9)] The flood plain overlay district needs to be shown on sheet 3. 11. [14-302(B)(10)] The water protection ordinance buffer needs to be shown on sheet 3. 12. [14-303(A)] The owner approval statement needs to be revised to include that this plat is Phase 2 of Block 32. 13. [14-303(D)] Revise the acreage amounts, as the cover sheet identifies Residue — Phase 2 as 12.411 acres, while sheet 2 identifies it as 12.413 acres. 14. [14-303(K)] Are the temporary turn-arounds from Phase 1 being vacated? Please identify what is happening to them. 15. [14-303(0)] Signature panels need to be provided for all owners, including the owners of the additional parcels that need to be identified on the plat, as mentioned previously in comments 6 and 9. 16. [14-303(P)] Add additional notary panels as needed for the additional owners. 17. [14-302(A)(4) and 14-317] 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. 18. [ZMA2015-00001] Label the proposed affordable units on the plat, in accordance with proffer #2 of the ZMA. Revise the Affordable Units note on the cover sheet to address Phase 2. In addition, note 24 states that there are 14 affordable units, while the note to its left under the heading "Affordable Units" states there are 23. Please revise. 19. [ZMA2015-00001] Identify on the table on sheet 8 what is being provided with this plat regarding affordable units and residential units as a whole. 20. [ZMA2015-00001] Identify on the table on sheet 8 what is being provided with this plat regarding open space. 21. [ZMA2015-00001] On the cover sheet, clearly identify the pocket parks as being dedicated to Old Trail Community Association. The note currently says "open space," but the plat labels call them "pocket parks," not open space. 22. [General Comment] Revise the titles of sheets 6 and 7 to match what is stated in the Table of Contents on the cover sheet. There is also a typo of "palt" under the source of title/plat references heading on the cover sheet (DB 5148 PG 191-199). 23. [General Comment] Site plan(s) will be required for the single-family attached units. It is acknowledged that this plan is currently under review, SDP2018-00064. 24. [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 appear smaller than the other single-family detached parcels. 25. [14-306, 14-233, 14-234] Lot 64, Lot 65, and Bishopgate Lane Ext. need to be combined as one lot on this plat, as Bishopgate Lane Ext. has not been approved as a private street at this time, and thus, lots 64 and 65 have no frontage. In addition, the emergency access easement will need to be extended over what is shown as the private street, extending to Bishopgate Lane, as the private street has not been approved. A request for a private street and another plat will need to be submitted after approval of this plat if there is continued interest in creating a private street and additional lots in this location. Comments pulled from SUB2019-00023 regarding the proposed private street of Bishopgate Lane Ext., for reference: 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. I.) [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, ecox2(a�albemarle.org —Requested changes: 1. Public easements will need deeds. (Please see the attached template for the deed of dedication and easement.) Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Andy Slack, aslackgalbemarle.org — Requested changes: The road name of 'Bishopgate Lane Ext." could potentially cause confusion for emergency responders due to 'Bishopgate Lane' being a loop road. For more efficient response times please use a different road name designator in order to minimize confusion such as 'Bishopgate Place', 'Bishopgate Drive', 'Bishopgate Trail', etc. Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger, mdellinger&albemarle.org — Requested changes: 1. Note to developer: Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, underground propane tanks may be prohibited. Plan accordingly. Other than this no objection. Mad Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox, smaddox(kalbemarle.org — Requested changes: 1. Fire Rescue has no objection to the plat. Just a reminder that the emergency apparatus access road must not exceed 15% grade and must meet all turning radius during site plan submittal. Albemarle County Service Authority — Richard Nelson, melsonnserviceauthori , .org — Requested changes: 1. Applicant should consider vacating portions of ACSA easements that fall within the proposed VDOT R/W. 2. Pocket Park A — Inspector advised that water main was extended further than shown on approved plans. Consider obtaining this information from contractor and extending easement as required. May be better just to extend this easement to the R/W line. 3. How will easements be handled along Private R/W's? Will these areas be fully granted to the ACSA? Virginia Department of Transportation — Willis Bedsaul, willis.bedsaul(cr�,vdot.vir ig nia.gov — No objections at this time; please see the attached memo.