Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900068 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-19 (3)County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering From: Tori Kanellopoulos — Senior Planner Division: Planning Services Date: May 19, 2020 Subject: SDP201900068 — Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development and the Site Review Committee 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.] Planning (Tori Kanellopoulos) 1. Recommend provide comment response letter. 2. [18-4.6.2] Determining lot front. Lot front is determined as follows: `On interior lots, the lot front shall be the portion abutting the street'. Lots 20-28 front on the private street/alley, and do not also front on a public street. Therefore, the front setback is measured from the private street, and the rear setback is what is currently labeled `front setback'. Since the minimum rear setback is 10', the rear setback is not being met for these units. A special exception can be requested to either: 1) change the minimum rear setback in Block C or 2) allow amenity -fronting lots. 3. [Special Exception #2] Please note that staff has reviewed this site plan using the requested/updated setbacks per Special Exception #2 (dated April 9, 2020). This assumes this request will be approved. It is scheduled for the Board's consent agenda for May 20, 2020. 4. [COD] Setbacks. a. Residential SFA setbacks are listed correctly, however non-residential setbacks are listed incorrectly, per the COD. b. The garages for Lots 13, 92, and 96 appear to be setback less than 18 feet. 5. [COD] Min/Max lot sizes. Lot 63 is 5,218 SF, however the maximum lot size for SFA units per the COD is 5,000 SF. 6. [ZMA201300017 Proffers] Per the ZMA proffers, 15 percent of the units must be affordable. a. The exact locations of the affordable units must be determined with the site plan, for proffer tracking purposes. If the location is changed after site plan approval, a LOR would be needed. The locations must be finalized prior to building permits. b. Include the affordable housing note/key on the first sheet, so that it is more clear and easier to access for Zoning staff reviewing proffers. 7. [18-4.6.1] Frontage. The portion of the private street/alley for Lots 16-28 needs to be labeled as a private street, not just an alley. The `30' private street easement' label should also remain labeled. 8. [ZMA2013-17 Application Plan] The alley behind Lots 1-15 does not need to be a private street, as these lots have frontage on a public street. Additionally, it is not labeled as a private street on the application plan. It should be revised to be a private access easement for an alley, not a private street. 9. [18-4.16.1 and 4.16.2] and [COD] Recreation. a. Request a substitution request for the second tot lot and the '/z basketball court. This should be a written request (separate PDF or Doc) included with the site plan submittal. This should show how the tot lot and '/z basketball court are being substituted. b. The COD refers to a community garden in pocket park #2. This should be shown on the site plan/landscaping plan. If the garden will be provided in the future, a space should be reserved for it, indicating a space for a garden, should residents be interested in establishing one. c. The COD refers to seating for a potential bus stop in pocket park #4. If no stop is planned at this time, an area should be shown on the site plan/landscaping plan indicating a space for future seating, if a bus stop is established. 10. [16-4.12.6] Parking spaces. Lots 97 and 98 do not appear to have garages of sufficient length to accommodate a vehicle. Clarify how their parking requirement is being met. 11. [18-32.5.2] and [18-32.6.2] Requirements of initial and final site plans. a. The owner in GIS is listed as Stanley Martin, not Spring Hill Land Development. b. Note that the proffers included on Sheet 2 will need to be updated if ZMA2020-6 is approved. c. Note that Special Exception #2 should be referenced if it is approved by the Board on May 20, 2020. The signed resolution should be included with the site plan, if approved. d. Include the zoning district of adjacent parcels, not just the owner information. e. Revise the phasing note on the first sheet, as all residential units are being developed in the first phase. f. Include a landscape plan with the final site plan resubmittal, not as a separate document. The landscape plan must be black and white. Utilities/easements under trees must be visible. Include lot numbers on the landscaping plan for easier reference for comments. 12. [18-32.7] Easements. a. Easements will need to match final plat. b. All easements need to be labeled, including ACSA, landscaping/maintenance, and sight distance easements. They appear to be shown, but not labeled. c. Arrows should be shown on each side of easements for clarity. It is difficult to see where some easements are, and some appear to not be labeled or missing a dimension. i. For example, the drainage easement behind Lot 51 appears to be missing a dimension in the middle. Same with Lot 100. d. Show and label all easements on the Utility Plan sheets also. i. Include existing easements as well. e. Maintenance easements for retaining walls on or adjacent to lots need to be shown and labeled. This includes Lot 75, Lots 33 and 34, Lots 46-49, and Lots 60 and 61. However, Engineering comments indicate that retaining walls should not be on individual lots. See Engineering comments for more details. f. Some easements appear to be within building areas, such as the drainage easements in front of Lots 50-60. g. Landscaping easements are shown for some lots where landscaping appears to be in the public or private ROW, not on individual lots. Landscaping in ROW does not require an easement. Clarify the purpose of the landscaping easements on the lots where the street trees (required landscaping) are being provided in the ROW. For example, Lots 39-42 have a landscaping easement in their front yards, however the street trees are provided in a planting strip in the ROW. This comment applies to most Lots. h. Approval of application SUB201900082, easement plat for required offsite easements, is needed prior to road plan approval. SUB201900079, also for required offsite easements, has been approved. The DB and PG for the recorded easements need to be on the road plan. i. The 20' landscaping easement for the buffer appears to be within the building for Lot 29. Adjust the easement to be outside of the building, even if slightly less than 20' results for the buffer. j. Label the Private Street easements on these sheets as well. i. [14-317] Approval of a private street maintenance agreement for the private streets is required prior to final site plan approval. This may be done with the road plan or the site plan. A private street maintenance agreement was submitted with SUB2020-64 (final plat) and will be reviewed with the plat and with SUB2019-158 (road plan). 13. [18-32.7.5.1 and 18-4.1] Each development and each lot shall be served by the public water supply and public sewer system. This development is relying on offsite infrastructure. Prior to final site plan and/or final plat approval, the sewer connection shall either be built or bonded. 14. [18-32.7.9.4] Contents of a landscape plan. a. Include the landscape plan with the site plan resubmittal. b. Any landscaping over lot lines needs a landscaping easement, and maintenance needs to be included in a covenant (e.g. HOA documents) meeting the requirements of 14-317. c. Label and include the height of the screening fence adjacent to the residentially zoned properties. d. Revise the northern landscaping screening/buffer to use evergreen/coniferous trees. Sweet Bay Magnolia do not provide screening. 15. [18-32.7.9.5] Street trees. Street trees/landscaping must match SUB201900158 Road Plan prior to final approval. There are currently many differences between the two. 16. [18-32.7.9] Approved plant list. Ilex Mary Nell, Ilex Magland, Thuja Steeplechase and Prunus cerasus Montmorency do not appear to be on the approved plant list. 17. [18-32.8.2 and 14-311] Other required applications. Road Plans and WPO application must be approved, and all required improvements must be built or bonded, and all required Deeds and Declarations must be reviewed and approved prior to final site plan/final subdivision plat approval. ARB COA is required prior to final approval. 18. [ZMA2013-17 Proffer #4 and Route 20] The applicant is responsible to design, bond, and construct the improvements shown on the County approved engineering drawings titled Development Concept Plan, Sheet 4 dated 10-21-13 and revised on 08-29-14 as prepared by Alan Franklin PE, for both SR 20 and SR 742. a. The proposed sidewalk along Route 20 should be revised to a trail/pedestrian path, consistent with the proposed proffer amendment per ZMA202000006. This design is contingent upon proffer approval. b. If revised proffer is approved, update plan (including grading plan and Road Plan SUB2019-158) accordingly. 19. [ZMA2013-17 Proffer #4 and Avon Street Ext (SR 742)] The applicant is responsible to design, bond, and construct the improvements shown on the County approved engineering drawings titled Development Concept Plan, Sheet 4 dated 10-21-13 and revised on 08-29-14 as prepared by Alan Franklin PE, for both SR 20 and SR 742. a. Continue the proposed sidewalk along SR 742 to the shared property line of TMP 90-27B or provide construction easements for future connections. b. Include note that overhead utilities will be undergrounded. This note is included for SR 20, but not for SR 742. Engineering 1. Requested changes: See attached letter dated May 18, 2020. Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. No objection. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) 1. No objection. ACSA (Richard Nelson) 1. Comments will be sent directly to applicant from ACSA. VDOT (Adam Moore)] 1. No objection. See attached letter dated May 19, 2020. ARB (Paty Saternye) 1. An ARB submission has been made. Because of COVID19 the ARB meeting for this Final Site Plan has not yet been scheduled. ARB comments will be forwarded for SDP2019-68 to the planning reviewer and the applicant after the ARB meeting date. Please contact Tori Kanellopoulos in the Planning Division at vkanellopoulos(a)-albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3270 for further information.