HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000013 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-05-28COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (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: March 30, 2020
Revision 1: May 28, 2020
Subject: SDP202000013 Foothill Crossing V — Final Site Plan (digital submittal)
The final site plan referenced 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 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. [32.5.2(a)] Reflect new application. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Revise the application project ID to SDP202000013.
b. Update the REVISIONS title block section to remove revisions that were part of the previous application.
c. List the date of the initial submittal for this plan (should be 2/3/2020).
2. [32.5.2(b)] Scales. Check scales on all sheets. It appears that the higher values do not scale correctly when measured with a
scale bar. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n), 4.16] Recreation areas.
a. The required square footage of recreation areas for this development should be 6,200sf (200sf x 31units =
6,200sf). The proposed tot lot is 4,454sf. Revise the plan to meet or exceed this requirement. See Sec. 4.16 for
more information. Rev. 1: Per our discussion on 5/28/20, please revise the passive recreation aspects to
create more of a looped amenity that ties into and incorporates the tot lot recreation area. Please be
aware that any pathways on private properties will need to be accompanied by access easements. As is
typical, easement areas will need to be shown and noted with deed book and page number prior to final
site plan approval.
b. The zoning ordinance requires that recreation areas be located in a way that they are compatible with adjoining
uses. The tot lot's current proximity to the SWM facility does not comply with this requirement. Revise the
plan such that the tot lot is appropriately placed. Rev. 1: Please see the attached letter from Megan
Nedostup and revise the plan to provide greater separation between these two site plan elements.
c. The site plan must demonstrate a suitable means of access to the tot lot. Given the current design, a fence must
be established on both sides of the pathway leading to the tot lot to ensure that users feel able and comfortable
using the accessway. Rev. 1: Please see the attached letter from Megan Nedostup and revise the plan to
incorporate one of the suggested options.
d. This tot lot will be required to be fenced. Indicated fenced areas with a label.
e. The plan should clearly demonstrate that at least two (2) climbers are provided. Other minimum equipment
requirements appear to be meet.
f. Note: If alternative recreation areas will be proposed in order to meet the minimum size requirement, the
applicant must submit a request to the Planning Department for review/approval. The request must state why
an alternative is proposed and provide a justification. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. A substitution request
for the proposed development was received by the County. The letter was dated January 31, 2020 but
was not received until March 31, 2020, via email.
4. [32.6.2, 32.7.9] Landscape plan.
a. This development does not need to meet the requirements of 32.7.9.6 Landscaping Within A Parking Area.
Remove this information from the plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. The proposed passive recreation area, and possibly pathway if any clearing is intended, cannot be counted
towards the tree canopy requirements for this development. Revise the plan to clearly demonstrate that the tree
canopy in the northern corner of the property is not inclusive of the proposed passive recreation area. Rev. 1:
Comment may still be valid. It was not clear on the plan what the subtracted acreage of 0.897ac
represented. Can you clarify?
c. On Sheet 11, review Note 3. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
i. The Required Street Trees should be 51 trees ((1,970/40 + 1 (at the starting point) = 51).
ii. The Proposed Street Trees should total to 53 trees, not 55.
d. Per Comment 4c, update the Plant Legend to reflect that there are 53 Pin Oaks being provided, not 54. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
e. Per Comment 4b and 4d, update the resulting Canopy Coverage and Total Canopy. Rev. 1: See response to
Comment 4b above. Also, based on the implied calculation, the Total Canopy noted in the Plant
Schedule chart should be 38,860sf. The math seems to be off on the Evergreen Tree species. Please
review and revise.
f. Per Comment 4e, it does not appear that the development is currently meeting the canopy requirement of 20%.
Review and revise the plan to meet this requirement. Rev. 1: See response to Comments 4b and 4e.
g. There is a conflict between the location of a Nellie R Stevens Holly and the patio of Lot 1. Revise. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
[32.5.2(i), 32.5.2(s)] Connection to other developments. The application plan for ZMA201600005 and the initial site plan
for this development showed a pedestrian connection to other phases of the Glenbrook/Foothill development. Thank you for
providing information regarding the intended tie in of the emergency access facility. In addition:
a. Demonstrate how the pedestrian facilities from this development will tie into existing or plated pedestrian
facilities of other phases (reference deed book and page). Rev. 1: Comment still applies. Thank you for
providing references, however I was not able to confirm with these references that the approved
roadway on parcel TMP 56-57B1 extends to the location shown on the plan. The approved right-of-way
instead appears to terminate further north. As such:
i. Please adjust the emergency accessway to coordinate with approved and platted roadways.
(Note: The applicant may want to coordinate with Roudabush, Gale & Associates on this road
design as they recently submitted a plat for the emergency access easement.)
ii. Please review and revise the legal reference to instead reference the recorded roadway plat
(should be DB 5075 PG 664). Update labels on all sheets accordingly.
b. In addition to the emergency access label, also label this facility as a pedestrian/bike pathway on the
neighboring parcel. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
c. Include bollards on both ends of the emergency access and pedestrian/bike facility. Rev. 1: Comment still
applies. Similar to the response to Comment 5a., please relocate the bollards on TMP 56-57111 to the
terminating point/end of the platted right-of-way.
d. [Based on revised plan dated 3/30/20] On Sheet 3, I could not confirm the reference to SUB2018-23.
Please remove this label or provide the recorded deed instrument.
e. [Based on revised plan dated 3/30/20] A recorded legal instrument (deed book and page number) for the
proposed emergency access easement will need to be shown and noted on the plan prior to final site plan
approval.
6. [32.5.2(n)] Retaining wall. Per new County Policy, retaining walls crossing properties need to be self -supported and end at
the property line or maintenance agreements will be needed. Rev. 1: A recorded legal instrument (deed book and page
number) for the proposed retaining wall easement will need to be noted on the plan prior to final site plan approval.
An easement plat for this improvement has not been submitted to the County for review/approval yet, but could be
incorporated into the existing subdivision plat for this development which is currently under review by the County.
The applicant may want to coordinate with Roudabush, Gale & Associates, the applicant for the subdivision plat.
7. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3] Sidewalks. Provide sidewalk facilities on the south side of Indigo Road or submit a waiver request to
use the path provided by Claudius Crozet Park in lieu of a southern sidewalk facility. A waiver request will need to be
approved by the Planning Commission and agreed to by the owner of Claudius Crozet Park. Rev. 1: Please see the
attached letter from Megan Nedostup and submit an exception, in accordance with Sec. 14-422(E), to the
requirements of Sec. 14-422(A). Please be aware, this comment will be moved to the Road Plan comments and will
need to be resolved with the review/approval of that plan (SUB202000021).
8. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. List the non-infill side minimum and maximum setback requirements for this property.
b. List the required Building Separation as a separate line item
9. [32.5.2(b)] Impervious surface. The impervious area calculations on the Cover Sheet should also account for residential
walkways, residential patios, pedestrian trailways/accessways, and the emergency accessway. Demonstrate or clarify that
these improvements are also included in the impervious area calculation. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n)] Building dimensions.
a. Since building sides differ in length, provide dimensions for all sides of a typical villa unit. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
b. Provide typical dimension details for villa units without patios (i.e. structures in place of patios). Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
c. [Based on revised plan dated 3/30/201 On the dimension vignette for Villa Unit Type B, dash or remove
the line between the "Sunroom or Patio" and the rest of the house. This representation could lead to
confusion with housing types on lots that offer concrete -only patios — due to the encroachment of these
improvements into the rear -yard setback — such as Lots 1-9.
11. [32.5.2(n)] Paving material. Identify the proposed paving material for driveways. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(s)] Labels. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. Adjust the Proposed Street Tree label on Lot 4 so that it connects to a street tree.
b. Adjust the 5' Front Setback on Lot 23 so that it connects to the intended linework. This label is currently
pointing to the sidewalk.
c. Adjust the Proposed Sanitary Lateral on Lot 3 so that it connects to the intended linework.
d. Remove the note "Proposed 50' Greenway Area Dedicated to Albemarle County" from Sheet 4 of this site
plan. This site plan cannot dedicate off -site areas.
13. [Comment] Lighting. Will lighting be provided along the proposed primitive trailway? Rev. 1: Adequate clarification was
provided by the applicant via the comment letter response dated 3/31/2020.
14. [Comment] Notes. On the Cover Sheet, remove Note #4. A subdivision or easement plat will be required for this
development and that/those documents will dictate ownership of proposed easements. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(i)] Off -site easements/agreements. Prior to final site plan approval, 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.
Off -site easements/agreements will be needed for at least the following:
a. Emergency accessway Rev 1: Comment still applies. Plats addressing the formalization of the Emergency
accessway have been submitted and are currently under review by the County. Once approved and
recorded, the deed book and page references will need to be noted on the site plan prior to final site plan
approval.
b. Use of path in Claudius Crozet Park (if this sidewalk will be used in lieu of providing a sidewalk facility on the
south side of Indigo Rd) Rev 1: Comment still applies. This information has not been submitted yet but is
still needed.
c. Off -site stormwater facilities. Rev 1: Comment still applies. A plat addressing this comment has been
submitted and are currently under review by the County. Once approved and recorded, the deed book
and page references will need to be noted on the site plan prior to final site plan approval.
Additional comments based on revised plan dated 3/30/20:
16. [32.5.2(a)] On the Cover Sheet, update the notes to reflect the current parcel owner, Daily South investments, LLC
and related information.
17. [Comment] Apologies that this was not realized sooner but, as you are probably aware, USPS now requires
centralized mail delivery for new residential developments (see letter attached). As such, please indicate a location
for centralized mail delivery on the site plan.
OTHER SRC REVIEWERS
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Matthew Wentland, mwentlandgalbemarle.org — Requests Changes; see comments below
1. An approved WPO submittal will be required before site plan approval.
2. An approved road plan submittal will be required before site plan approval.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbecker@albemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellinger(a)albemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddoxgalbemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Service Authority
Richard Nelson, rnelson(a)serviceauthority.org — Requests Changes; see comments below
1. Dedication of ACSA utilities for the Foothill Crossing Connector Road will be required prior to final approval.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, adam.moorepvdot.virginia.gov — Requests Changes; see comment letter attached
In accordance with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code, if the applicant fails to submit a revised
site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter, the application shall be
deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant.
Please contact Mariah Gleason in the Planning Division by using maleason&albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for
further information.
AL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
TO: Mariah Gleason, Senior Planner
FROM: Megan Nedostup, Principal Planner
DATE: April 29, 2020
SUBJECT: SDP2020-013 Foothill Crossing Phase V- Final Site Plan Comment Concerns
Mariah:
I have reviewed the concerns raised by Mr. Collins regarding comments on the above application. Please
see my comments to those concerns below. I am happy to discuss these with Mr. Collins, if needed.
Reeardine Comment 3(b):
Mr. Collins Response: This comment is inaccurate and an extremely stretched interpretation of the
ordinance. This was never brought up during the initial site plan review, nor the original site plan
review. Also, I have countless other projects with recreational facilities adjacent to SWM facilities and
there was never an issue with those projects either. Some of these projects include Sunset Overlook
and Avinity/Avinity Estates for starters. The fence that is proposed around the tot lot will also serve as
protection from the swm facility. Based on grades, the SWM facility is not accessible from the tot lot.
Finally, the SWM facility is a dry grass retention facility, which only holds water for a period of time (24
hrs after a storm event) and then drains out. This is not a wet pond facility that is a safety hazard. If this
is still an issue, please let me know immediately and I will follow up with the planning director and
zoning administrator.
Comment: While you are correct that this was not identified during the initial, there is concern with the
tot lot being so close to the stormwater facility. Even if it is a dry grass facility, there is a safety concern.
Often these facilities are rarely mowed, and there is a concern with snakes, ticks, and other animals so
close to the playground. In the examples you mentioned, these tot lots were a distance away from the
stormwater facilities in comparison to what is proposed here (see below). Could the passive recreation
area and the tot lot be switched in location?
1
Avinity Estates:
T� (DOES NOT INCLLIDEFRCt IGY I
0.38 AC. DEDICATED - 53+�° (20 p'OC- ESS EASEMENT)
TO AVINITY 1) _
- 1
PROPOSED SWM
OR
FACILITY FOR
ff I
1
I
(P) VAR. WIDTH
SWM MAINTENANCE
EABPAEW
1 '
AVINITY ESTATES
PROPOSED HVAC
C UNIT (TYP•]
s TorLor CLUBHOUSE
Af 1rry
46
PROPOM CG-12 f 1D f
NOTE
ROAC
CON:
DEVE
NOTE:
WITH i
SUB20'
FOR DP
ROAD
2' WIDE CURB CUT WITH W LONG FL
SIDEWALK TRANSITIONS ON EITHE
PEDESTRIAN TRANSITION. CURB O
ALLOW THE FIRST FLUSH TO DRAY
PROP05ED OFFLINE RLTERRA BID'
22 SHALL SERVE AS THE BYPASS IN
STORMS. SEE 5WM PLAN FOR ADD
TREET
SIGN
7Tj pR�A�ora
ATE RIVI�I e _ j -
l
Sunset Overlook:
G j:'x,� dROPbsEd i sfw€
w OPOSEOC Fr
!!II SWSLF m-
SLIDE r OODEN FE-CE .. 1�. `- PA wS.G.
wS" p a
y�
�PROPOSEDTOT
F/ LOT AREA OPEN 5PACEA PROPOSED RO&D aKN O"ED
d 3.3Q ACRES-757P-C64 worsro cG„
r/// �. �lilWniR� PcOPOSED�M�xHf - +a �5� PRQVL
3ENCnE� 9LOCNIPED�•ROCR - W CG-99N"
f1ETNNIN4
UMEL 6ACx '�� ^-/OPO6f1
q INNER DOI �4FKWT A6lE K�- w STOP
_ ri PRowSED '!E
4:•G' PMALLELPA'.0 OACES �� �'�r VDOTSTD CGi = r
2SPACES TOTAL . n, LOT 2
7dPRIVATE ALLEY
_ s I•� ¢ Iv. yOO,57D,Cfiy :1'
2
Foothill Proposal:
Lu 1 15
99
i
3.6 PROPOSED CONCRETE
PATIO (TYP.)
W ASP HALT PATHWAY AND k
26 ACESS EASEMENT FOR
Cb ACCESS TO THE
r PROPOSED RECREATION AREA.
` ' SEE SHEE T g FOR PAVE M ENT DETAI L
VINYL I PROPOSEDTOTLOT
FENCE 1 SEE DETAILS, SHEET 3L4
T=42' N �_ PROPOSED
SWM FACILITY
RECREATION 9°
s OPOSEDRETAININGW!
AREA
1 SEE DESIGN, SHEET 5
PROPOSED RECREATION AREA WrrH
r 3 MLI`H GROUNDC OVER (4,.45 SF)
lo' BUI LDI NG
w� SEPARATION
Regarding Comment 3(c):
Mr. Collins Response: This comment is not appropriate. Creating a 10' fenced in pathway to the tot lot
is not a good planning practice. However, we have changed the surface of the pathway to an asphalt
walking path so that it will feel connected from the sidewalk to the tot lot area. We have shown the
fencing for the tot lot area and the paved pathway, creating a demarcation line between the
recreational area and access to the facility and the lots. If this is still an issue, please let me know
immediately and I will follow up with the planning director and zoning administrator.
Comment: Since the path is proposed to be within the lots, and less than a foot away from the
proposed deck/patios, it is necessary to indicate, as part of providing adequate access, that the user is
permitted to use the path, and it's not part of someone's lot to create a public space. One solution is
to provide fencing. It does not need to be screened fencing, it could be waist high, open fencing, or
even a row of shrubs.
Regarding Comment 7:
Mr. Collins Response: The approval letter from Claudius Crozet park for the connection to their asphalt
pedestrian pathway that runs parallel to this roadway will submitted as soon as we received it. Based
on section 14-422B, it would appear that this asphalt path would meet these circumstances and it can
be approved by the agent in lieu of the Planning Commission. If this is not the case, please let me know
immediately and I will follow up with the planning director about this matter.
Comment: Under 14-422(A) sidewalks are required to be established on both sides of a new street in
the development areas. While there is a path in Crozet Park very near to the street, it is on an offsite
property, not in control of the development, and may be changed at any time. In addition, the existing
path at Crozet Park is not the required 10 feet wide, and section 14-422(C) requires that the sidewalk
be maintained by either VDOT or the homeowner's association, in this instance, neither of these
requirements are being met. Therefore, an exception to these requirements is required to be
submitted per 14-422(E), and it appears that under the consideration, criteria (iii) and (vi) would apply
3
(see ordinance copied below). If staff is in support of the request, it will be placed on the consent
agenda for the Planning Commission. An option is to request that sidewalk only be provided on one
side of the proposed street since there is an existing path and include the information that access is
being provided to that path. Information from Crozet Park will be needed in support of the use of the
trail and easement necessary to make the connection.
1. Information to be submitted. If such a request is made, it shall include: (i) a
justification for the request; (ii) a vicinity map showing a larger street network at a scale no smaller than
one (1) inch equals six hundred (600) feet; (iii) a conceptual plan at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch
equals two hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property; (iv) topography of the
property at five (5) foot intervals for the property being subdivided and on abutting lands to a distance of
five hundred (500) feet from the boundary line or a lesser distance determined to be sufficient by the agent;
(v) the locations of streams, stream buffers, steep slopes, floodplains, known wetlands; (vi) the proposed
layout of streets and lots, unit types, uses, and location of parking, as applicable; and (vii) the location of
any existing pedestrian network in the area, whether it is publicly or privately maintained, descriptions by
widths and surfaces of the pedestrian ways within the existing pedestrian network, a proposed alternative
profile and the intended ownership and maintenance.
2. Consideration. In reviewing a request to vary or except the requirement for
sidewalks, the commission shall consider whether: (i) a variation or exception to allow a rural cross-section
has been granted; (ii) a surface other than concrete is more appropriate for the subdivision because of the
character of the proposed subdivision and the surrounding neighborhood; (iii) sidewalks on one side of the
street are appropriate due to environmental constraints such as streams, stream buffers, steep slopes,
floodplain, or wetlands, or because lots are provided on only one side of the street; (iv) the sidewalks
reasonably can connect into an existing or future pedestrian system in the area; (v) the length of the street is
so short and the density of the development is so low that it is unlikely that the sidewalk would be used to
an extent that it would provide a public benefit; (vi) an alternate pedestrian system including an alternative
pavement could provide more appropriate access throughout the subdivision and to adjoining lands, based
on a proposed alternative profile submitted by the subdivider; (vii) the sidewalks would be publicly or
privately maintained; (viii) the waiver promotes the goals of the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood
model, and the applicable neighborhood master plan; and (ix) waiving the requirement would enable a
different principle of the neighborhood model to be more fully achieved.
Thank you,
Megan Nedostup, AICP
mnedostup@albemarle.org
Cl
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 786-2701
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 786-2940
April 16, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Mariah Gleason
Matt Wentland
Re: Foothills Phase V
SDP-2020-00013 — Final Site Plan
Review #2
Dear Ms. Gleason:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced Site Plan as submitted by Collins Engineering, dated
03-30-2020, and offer the following comments:
1. An SSAR Exception for connectivity is under review.
2. Please add the following note to the plan: Landscaping plants and trees adjacent to the
sight distance triangle will need to be maintained in area between 2 and 7 feet above
ground as a clear zone to preserve sight lines and accommodate pedestrians.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene 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. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING