HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000053 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-08-25County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering
From: Tori Kanellopoulos — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: August 25, 2020
Subject: SDP202000053 — Lochlyn Hills Phase IV — Final Site Plan dated 07-08-20
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approve 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. 18-4.19 Setbacks: Update the setback note on Sheet 1 to indicate that the minimum side
setback is 5'.
2. 18-4.19 Setbacks: Note that all setbacks have been reviewed assuming the sidewalk is
in the public ROW. Clarify if the ROW is being adjusted so that the sidewalk is fully in the
ROW.
3. 18-4.7 and 18-15.5 and 18-2.2 Open space and cluster developments. Include a plan
sheet that shows the entire open space area included in this development, not just the
townhouses. The development is using the cluster and bonus provisions for density
bonus; therefore, the entire development needs 25 percent open space. All open space
needs to be shown on the site plan, include square footages of each open space (A, B,
etc.).
4. 18-4.7 and 18-15.5 and 18-2.2 Open space and cluster developments. Revise notes
throughout site plan that indicate 'no open space is provided'.
5. 18-15.4.3 Affordable housing density bonus. Since the preliminary plat/initial site plan
approval, there has been a reduction in total acreage for the site. Previous acreage was
4.554 acres, which allows for 18 units by -right, and which would require 2 affordable
units for the additional 4 bonus units (1/2 affordable). However, the new acreage is
4.4595, which results in 17 units by -right, and which would require 3 affordable units for
the additional 5 bonus units. Either add an additional unit or include the full acreage as
was approved with the preliminary and initial approvals.
6. 18-4.11.4 Structures and easements. There appears to be an easement within the
building on Lot 20.
7. 18-32.5.2 and 18-32.6.2 Contents of a site plan.
a. The name of the owners for TMP's 61A-3, 61A-3A, and 61A-313 do not appear to
be listed —just the addresses.
b. Include the owners, present use, and zoning districts of abutting parcels.
c. Include an existing sheet/demo plan that shows existing conditions (not with
proposed lots for the site plan).
d. Include the ingress/egress with distance to centerline of nearest existing
intersection.
8. 18-32.7.2.3 Sidewalks. Planning staff has contacted Transportation Planning staff to
determine if sidewalks should be provided on the other side of Pen Park Lane, or if only
having sidewalks on one side is acceptable.
9. 18-32.7.4 and 18-32.7.5 Easements and required improvements.
a. Label all easements.
b. The easements shown on the plan do not appear to exactly match the final plat.
The sight distance easements do not appear to be shown. The full dimensions of
the private sanitary lateral easement do not appear to be shown. The full
dimensions of the drainage easements do not appear to be shown.
10. 18-32.7.9.4 Contents of a landscape plan.
a. Ensure all easements are shown on the landscape plan. Some
easements/dimensions are missing, as compared with the final plat.
b. Provide a signed conservation checklist, as some existing landscaping is being
counted toward the street tree requirement.
11. 18-32.7.9.5 Street trees.
a. Ensure the applicable areas of the road and site plans match. Some sheets
indicate three (3) exiting street trees will be preserved, while others indicate four
(4).
b. Ensure existing trees still meet 32.7.9.5 street tree requirements.
c. Update table to include all street trees, including the species/caliper of existing
trees being counted toward street trees.
12. Additional applications: The following applications and approvals are required prior to
final site plan approval:
a. 18-32.7.4.2 and 18-32.7.5.3: Easement Plats: All new and adjusted easements
must be shown on an easement plat or on a final plat, which must be approved
prior to final site plan approval, and must match the final site plan. See
Engineering comments on required SWM easements.
b. 14-403, 14-235, 14-311 and 18-4.6.1 Road Plan approval will be required prior to
final site plan approval. Improvements must be built or bonded prior to final
approval.
c. 18-32.7.4.1: Approval of a VSMP Plan is required prior to final site plan approval.
See Engineering comments. Coordinate directly with David James
(diames2(a).a1bemarle.oro).
Engineering (David James):
1. Please submit a VSMP plan; approval will be needed prior to FSP approval.
2. The Road Plan will need to be approved prior to FSP approval.
3. The subdiv. plat will need to be approved prior to FSP approval.
4. Please sign & date seals.
5. A waiver request is needed for dead-end alley. [ACDSM, pg. 18]
6. Sheet 3/4 —
a. Provide 25' radius for cul-de-sac. [ACDSM, pg.20]
b. Remove curbing shown at driveway entrances.
c. Provide entrance aprons for alleyway lots.
d. Label curb & entrance apron type along alleyways.
e. Callout street sign for Ellison Alley.
f. Show roof drains and where they outlet.
g. Show drainage easements over pipes in alleyways.
h. Show sight distance easement for lot 20.
i. Label drainage structure type, pipe diameter, length, slope & material or provide
drainage summary table. [18-32.6.21
VDOT (Adam Moore):
1. See attached letter dated August 21, 2020.
ACSA (Richard Nelson):
1. Review comments will be sent directly to applicant.
RWSA (Dyon Vega):
1. General comments:
a. RWSA would like to seethe road plans to compare existing conditions with new
road conditions. (Note: Planning has sent RWSA road plans for review on 08-14-
201
2. Sheet 4:
a. We have a gate valve on the 18" DI waterline (picture attached) please include
the location of this valve on your plans. Also we are concerned with this being
shallow only V to 2' deep we don't want to lose any cover on this.
b. The proposed grading for the new road would reduce the cover over the 18" DI
waterline. We are also concerned about the depth of this line.
Inspections (Michael Dellinger):
1. PENDING
Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox):
1. The cul-de-sac must be 48' radius to allow emergency apparatus turn around due to the
travel way being longer than 150'.
E911 (Brian Becker):
1. Critical Issues: The proposed road names "Evans Alley" and "Ellison Alley" are not
acceptable.
2. Comments: The proposed road name "Evans Alley" is not an acceptable road name
because it does not originate off the existing Evans Circle. The proposed road name
"Ellison Alley" is not acceptable because it does not originate off the existing Ellison St.
Per the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, Part 1.4.a
(page 10 of the PDF):
3. "A proposed road name which duplicates an existing or reserved road name withing a
United States Postal Service zip code that is located in Albemarle County or the City of
Charlottesville shall not be approved. An exception may be made for dead end streets
which have the same name as the road from which they originate (e.g., "Amberfield
Court" which originates from "Amberfield Drive")."
4. Please provide this office with alternate road names for review. You may wish to consult
the Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory (link below) to see the list of
existing road names.
5. Resources:
a. A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://www. al bemarle. org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Geogra ph i
c_Data _Services/Forms/Road_N ami ng_and_Property_N um beri ng_Ord inance_a
nd_Manual.pdf
b. Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory:
http://wvvw. abemarle. org/al bemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/.