Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000028 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-07-2800UNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Memorandum To: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering (iustin(a chimp -en ing eering com) Keane Rucker, Shimp Engineering (keane@shimp-en ing eering com) Brent Hall (brent@hallsautobodyinc.com) From: Mariah Gleason Division: Community Development — Planning Date: April 30, 2020 Revision 1: July 28, 2020 Subject: SDP202000028 Proffit Rd Townhomes North — 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)] Application ID. Include the application ID on the Cover Sheet (SDP202000028). Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(a)] Tax Map Parcel. Provide the unabbreviated tax map and parcel number in at least one place in the plan. Staff suggests providing this information on the Cover Sheet. Rev. 1: Comment remains. The comment response letter indicates that the abbreviated TMP provided on the Cover Sheet was replaced with the unabbreviated TMP, however, that change is not visible in the revised plan. 3. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning notes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. a. Indicate on the plan whether this is a conventional or cluster development. b. Include in the zoning notes that this parcel is subject to ZMA2018-06 and its associated proffers. 4. [4.19, 18.3] R-15 zoning district regulations a. If this is a conventional development, provide the size of each lot area (in square feet). Rev. 1: Comment withdrawn. The applicant has indicated that this is a cluster development. b. Revise the Side setback to align with Sec 4.19 for non -fill development. Rev. 1: Comment not fully satisfied. Note on the plan that the side setback is "5 feet, unless the building shares a common wall'. c. Provide the Building Separation requirement (of 10ft) as a separate line item. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.1(c), ZMA2018-06] Setbacks. Sheet C3 indicates that Lots 1-7 have a rear setback along Proffit Rd. Is this correct or will lots on this block have two front setbacks? Review and revise the setbacks and labels accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Lots 1-7, located within Block A, Area 1 in the Rezoning Application, are required by Proffer #6a to face Proffit Road. Therefore, these units should have two front setbacks, one along Proffit Road and one along Road C (Hall of Oaks Lane). Revise the setback lines shown on Lots 1-3 to mimic Lots 4-7. See Comment 28 below also. 6. [ZMA2018-06] Double frontage. If Lots 1-7 are intended to have their front building fagade face Proffit Rd: a. A waiver will be needed to relieve this development of the requirement for screening of double frontage residential lots, in accordance with Sec 32.7.9.7(a)(4). Rev. 1: Comment remains. Need waiver from the screening provision of the zoning ordinance in addition to the double frontage provision of the subdivision ordinance. A waiver to the zoning ordinance requirement is still needed to relieve the development of this requirement. b. Walkways connecting the front doors of Lot 1-7 to the sidewalk facilities along Proffit Rd will likely be required. Rev. 1: Comment not fully satisfied. Staff acknowledges the applicant's response, however this comment is made pursuant to the proffers of ZMA2018-06. In accordance with Proffer #6a, walkways connecting residences in Lots 1-7 to the sidewalk along Proffit Road must be included in the final site design to establish the fronts of these residences along Proffit Road. See Comment 28 below also. 7. [ZMA2018-06] Lot orientation. The placement/orientation of Lots 18-22 cannot be approved with this plan as they do not align with the approved application plan. Remove this representative information from the plan. Rev. 1: Comment satisfied. 8. [32.7.7, 4.16] Recreation Facilities. a. Demonstrate that the minimum recreation area is being provided. The minimum recreation area needed for this development is 10,800sf (54 units x 200sf per unit). The plan is currently showing 2,500sf of recreation area. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. Demonstrate that minimum facilities required for tot lots are being provided, per Sec. 4.16.2. Rev. 1. Comment not yet satisfied. The swing label on Sheet C15 identifies a "4 seat swing" but only three (3) seats are depicted. Is the fourth a standing swing? c. Will footings for the tot lot play equipment conflict with proposed underground stormwater facilities? Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The response provided by the applicant is sufficient. d. Indicate the intended ground cover of the tot lot. See Sec. 4.16.1 for examples of appropriate materials. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. e. Provide information/notes as required by Sec. 4.16.3: Rev. 1: Comment addressed. i. 4,16.3.2 Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner if rental units or a homeowners' association if sale units. ii. 4,16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when 50 percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. f. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.20201 Unprogrammed wooded recreation areas are not typically considered "active" by the County. Revise all labels for the 1000sf trailway and 5000sf wood recreation area to denote "passive" recreation amenities. g. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.20201 Show compliance with ADA regulations, particularly in regards to the tot lot entrance. 9. [32.5.2(d)] Managed Steep Slopes. Show managed steep slope locations on the existing conditions and site plan sheets. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. [ZMA2018-06, 32.5.2(i)] Easements. An easement plat will be needed for the buffer areas required by Proffer #4 and the proposed Stormwater Management Forest/Open Space easement. The easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Following a conversation with the applicant, staff will withdraw this comment. The aforementioned areas are adequately preserved through buffers, thus easements are not necessary. 11. [32.5.2(b)] Land use schedule a. Is the lot 7.59 acres or 7.29 acres? The deed book reference and square footage indicated in the Land Use Schedule total, 317,552sf both indicate the lot is 7.29 acres in size. Revise the site acreage provided on the plan maps sheet or clarify the source of this acreage. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The response provided by the applicant is acceptable. The survey plat submitted for this development, which is currently under review (SUB202000116), confirms the total subject property acreage is 7.59ac. b. Is the Land Use Schedule providing the amount of impervious surface cover on the site? Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. There appears to be a calculation error in the "Tot. Impervious" square footage noted in the proposed land use schedule table. This may impact other calculations provided in the proposed land use schedule table. Review and revise accordingly. c. How are driveways being accounted for within the table? Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The response provided by the applicant is sufficient. 12. [32.5.2(n)] Driveways. a. Are the driveways for Lots 23-20 meant to extend to the building? Review and revise if necessary. Also, please note that a change may impact the proposed land use schedule. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. The response provided by the applicant is sufficient. b. If not provided already, indicate the proposed paving material for the driveways. Rev. 1. Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2(b)] Open spaces. Since northern portions of the lot will be used for open spaces and to meet canopy requirements, show the entire parcel on the existing conditions sheet and/or provide bearing distances and ties/monuments with the Landscape Plan. Rev. 1. Comment addressed. 14. [32.7.9.4] Existing wooded area. On Sheet C2, indicate whether the existing wooded area is composed of evergreen, deciduous, or a mix. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 15. [32.5.2(n)] Trash. Indicate how trash will be handled for this development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(a)] Abutting parcel information. Provide the names of owners, zoning district, tax map and parcel numbers and present uses for all abutting parcels that are adjacent to areas where development is proposed. Rev. 1: Comment not fully satisfied. Identify the zoning district for each abutting parcel. 17. [32.5.2(a)] Departing lot lines. Show the departing lot lines of parcels abutting the subject property along State Route 649. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2(f)] Watershed. Revise watershed to "North Fork Rivanna (below water intake)". Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 19. [32.5.2(a)] North. Review and revise the north arrow on Sheet C8. Rev. 1: Comment withdrawn. This Sheet has been removed from the final site plan set. Comments required for Final Site Plan approval that may also apply to the associated Road Plan (SUB2020-55): 20. [ZMA2018-06] Proffer 92. Show the right-of-way improvements along Proffit Rd per the plan view map shown on Sheet 3 and the cross-section shown on Sheet 1 of the approved application plan. Rev. 1: Comment not fully satisfied. If VDOT determines that a left turn lane is not warranted now, based on the number of units being developed with the current plans, that will be acceptable to the County. However, the plans will need to note that, pursuant to Proffer #2 of the approved ZMA, a left turn lane may be warranted with any future buildout of the subject property. 21. [ZMA2018-06] Internal street network. The internal street network shown on the plan is not in alignment with the application plan and proffers associated with ZMA2018-06. To adhere with the approved application plan, Road B must terminate at its intersection with Road D. Rev. 1: Comment remains. Staff acknowledges the applicant's response but cannot accept the current design unless/until ZMA2019-10 is approved. 22. [ZMA2018-06, 32.7.2.2(d-e)] Extension and coordination ofstreets. County Code requires all streets within a development to extend and be constructed to the abutting property lines. To meet this requirement: a. Show construction of proposed Road D up to the property line of TMP 32A-2-1B and secure any off -site construction or grading easements that may be needed to allow the construction of Road D up to the property line. OR b. Provide documentation to demonstrate that the abutting landowner will not grant the easement, show construction of proposed Road D as close to the abutting property line as possible, and grant the necessary easement area to allow the future extension/connection of Road D to this parcel boundary in the future. Note: The easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Revision 1: The comment response letter from the applicant indicates that documentation from the abutting landowner, consistent with Comment 6b, will be provided to staff. The aforementioned documentation will be needed before this comment can be resolved. In addition, provide information to demonstrate that the road is being built as close as possible to the abutting property line and that a future connection can be built inside the right-of-way on the subject property. If not, easements outside of the proposed right-of-way may be needed to ensure this segment of roadway can be built in the future. 23. [32.5.2(b), 4.121 Parking a. The required parking for this development is 122 spaces. Per Sec. 4,12.6, this development is required to provide one guest parking space per four units (54/4=14 spaces). With this addition, the required parking for this development is 122 spaces (108+14). Review and revise the Parking Schedule on the Cover Sheet accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. There is a discrepancy in the proposed widths of on -street parking spaces. The plan maps indicate spaces will have a width of 8ft while the ROW Cross Sections provided on Sheet CIO indicate on -street parking spaces will have a width of 9ft. Please review and revise to align this information and provide on -street parking space widths of 9ft, in accordance with 1.1116. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.20201 The driveway widths for Lots 23-30 will need to be increased to provide at least the minimum parking space envelope of 9 feet wide and 18 feet long, as described in Sec. 4.12.16. 24. [32.7.9.4] Landscape Plan a. Provide a scale bar. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. b. Since this is not an infill development, where existing utilities are already in place, street trees will be required on both sides of the entire lengths of Road A and Road B. Revise the Landscaping Plan to include street trees in front of Lots 50-45 and on the eastern -facing sides of Lots 37-38. Rev. 1: Thank you for providing continuous street trees, however, some tree placements may create conflicts with proposed storm sewer lines. Revise the landscaping plan to provide adequate separation between these two plan elements. Planning staff will defer to Engineering on guidance related to the storm sewer line separation. c. All required street trees must be provided with this site plan, not a future site plan. Please revise the Landscaping Plan accordingly. Rev. 1: Comment acknowledged by applicant in the comment response letter. d. Remove Note 5 from the Landscape Plan. The scheduled street trees are being used to meet the tree canopy requirement for this development. As such, tree species cannot be substituted since different species have different canopy covers. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. e. Is the last tree species provided in the Interior Street Tree Schedule supposed to be a Nyssa sylvatica (black gum) or a Quercus palustris (pin oak)? The schedule currently specifies "Nyssa sylvatica (pin oak)", which appears to be a clerical error. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. f. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.20201 The Landscape Plan map indicates 12 Goldenraintrees are proposed along Proffit Rd while the planting schedule table and landscaping notes indicate 11 Goldenraintrees are provided here. Revise and align the map, planting schedule, and landscaping notes. g. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.20201 Including the adjusted tree quantity for the street trees along Proffit Rd, staff is only able to confirm a 1.52 acre (66,409sf) tree canopy being provided by the revised plan, however the Landscaping Plan notes a 1.53 acre canopy is being provided. While the canopy requirement is being met, there is likely a rounding difference between the calculations of the applicant and staff. Please confirm or revise if necessary. 25. [32.5.2(i)] Street names. Provide street names for new roads. Proposed names will need to be reviewed/approved by E911 prior to final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Additional comments on this aspect will be provided by the E911 reviewer. 26. [32.5.2(m)] Nearest intersection. Adjust the nearest intersection distance labels on Sheet C3 so they are on top of the hatched pattern(s). Current layering makes it difficult to read these labels. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. "Note: The continued review of Comments 20-22 will be tracked with the road plans for this development (SUB202000055). " Additional comments based on revised plan (dated 06.03.2020): 27. [ZMA2018-06] Proffer #5. Pursuant to Proffer #5 of the ZMA, provide a note on Sheet C3 that: "Except for units on Lots 1-7, single-family attached units shall have front -loading garages that are setback a minimum of 3 feet from the front building facade or front porch". 28. [ZMA2018-06] Proffer #6. Open Space A is inconsistent with Proffer #6 as it relates to the design of Lots 1-7, being in Block A, Area 1 of the Rezoning Plan. In accordance with the proffer, Lots 1-3 must face Proffit Road. Thus, the intended fronts of these buildings cannot be separated from Proffit Road by a common open space area. Instead, they should abut Proffit Road, similar to the way Lots 4-7 are currently shown. Remove this Open Space Area. 29. [32.5.2(i)] Easements. New easements shown on the site plan must be recorded and labeled with the deed book and page number of the recording instrument prior to final plat approval. OTHER SRC REVIEWERS Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Emily Cox, ecox2 e albemarle.org — Requests Changes, see comments below 1. Please put the plan number on the cover sheet, SDP20200028. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 2. Road plan must be approved and bonded before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. 3. Road B must terminate at Road D to match the approved ZMA20180006. Also interconnectivity must be shown as illustrated on the same approved ZMA. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. 4. Please note that the approved WPO must match the ultimate layout that is approved for this site, or a WPO amendment will be necessary. It was engineering's understanding that the WPO will match the layout that is approved for ZMA201900010. However, if that 2019ZMA is never approved, the WPO must be amended. Rev. 1: Comment acknowledged. 5. The road plan and profiles do not need to be included with the site plan. Please remove sheets that do not apply. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 6. Please clearly show the steep slopes on all applicable sheets. They appear to be outlined, but not clearly hatched or shaded. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. Please show the required 25 $ buffers on the northeastern corner of the property. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 8. Signed and sealed retaining wall designs must be provided prior to final site plan approval. This was commented on during the WPO review process. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. 9. Ensure parallel parking spaces meet requirements (9ftxMfl). Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. Provide storm calculations to go along with the profiles shown on sheet C 13. Rev. 1: County code Sec. 32.6.2 — e - 4 requires storm pipe information. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Brian Becker, bbecker e albemarle.org — Requests Changes, see comments below 1. The provided road names Zelkova Drive, Comer Oak Drive, Hall Of Oaks Drive and Flat Branch Lane are acceptable road names. Please show them on the submitted plan for approval. Albemarle County Building Inspections Michael Dellinger, mdellingenia albemarle.org — No Objection Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Shawn Maddox, smaddox(a),albemarle.org — No Objection Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Nelson, rnelson(i�serviceauthoritv.org — Continue to work with ACSA Virginia Department of Transportation Adam Moore, adam.moore(c vdot.virQinia.eov — PENDING, comments will be forwarded upon receipt. 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 meleason e albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for further information.