Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000028 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-12-0700UNTY 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 (Justin(a chimp -en ing eering com) Keane Rucker, Shimp Engineering (keane@shimp-en ing eering com) Stephanie Paul (stephanie(2shimp-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 Revision 2: December 7, 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 1D. 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 IMP, however, that change is not visible in the revised plan. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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 Rev. 1: Comment withdrawn.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'. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. c. Provide the Building Separation requirement (of IOft) 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 corrector 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 6. [ZN442848 06 ZMA2019-10] 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. See the approval letter attached. Please be aware, revisions to these driveway areas may impact the proposed land use schedule. 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 46a, 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. The response provided by the applicant is acceptable. 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, 4.161 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 C 15 identifies a "4 seat swing" but only three (3) seats are depicted. Is the fourth a standing swing? Rev. 2: Comment addressed. c. Will footings for the tot lot play equipment conflict with proposed underground storrnwater 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 06,03.2020] 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. g. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.2020] Show compliance with ADA regulations, particularly in regards to the tot lot entrance. Rev. 2: Comment not fully satisfied. Thank you for providing a ramp to the tot lot amenity. Please also provide grading information to ensure that the grading of the ramp meets ADA requirements. 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 7.598c. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 2: Comment satisfied. 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. *Note: The continued review of Comments 20-22 will be tracked with the road plans for this development (SUB202000055). 23. [32.5.2(b), 4.12] 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 811 while the ROW Cross Sections provided on Sheet CIO indicate on -street parking spaces will have a width of 911. Please review and revise to align this information and provide on -street parking space widths of 9ft, in accordance with Sec. 4.12.16. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. c. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03.2020] 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. Rev. 2: Comment not yet addressed. As discussed via phone, a waiver for a request to reduce the minimum parking space requirement for driveway widths on proposed Lots 23-30 was submitted by the applicant with the revised road plans (SUB202000055). However, this modification will need to be evaluated with the site plan (SDP202000028) since it is a requirement of the zoning ordinance (Chapt. 18). Therefore, staff will transfer the aforementioned request to this site plan proposal (SDP202000028) and evaluate it accordingly. Staff will forward any information on the review/approval of this waiver when it is available. 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 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. E [Based on revised plan dated 06.03,2020] 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. g. [Based on revised plan dated 06.03,2020] 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. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. h. [Based on revised plan dated 10.08.20201 Staff recommends replacing tree species in front of Lots 23-30 with a columnar or narrow cultivar to accommodate lack of growing area. Note, this is just a suggestion to facilitate successful street tree planting; this is not a requirement of approval. 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. Additional comments based on revised plan (dated 06.03.2020): 27. [ZMA2018-06] Proffer 45. 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 fapade or front porch". Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 28. [ZMA2018-06] Proffer 46. Open Space A is inconsistent with Proffer 46 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. Rev. 2: Based on the relatively small size of Open Space A in relation to the amount of open space that is needed to satisfy the open space requirements of Sec. 2.2.3 for Cluster Developments, staff withdraws this comment. 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. Rev. 2: Comment not yet addressed. Comment response letter implies that the applicant is working towards providing this information. Additional comments based on revised plan (dated 10.08.2020): 30. [Comment] Road names. Ensure proposed road names, on the plan maps and in the notes, are consistent and align with the associated road plans which are currently under review. 31. [Comment] Line work. On Sheets C3-C7, the line symbology to identify the proposed rights -of -way is also being used for minimum and maximum setbacks on Lots 1-7. Please review and revise the setback linework accordingly. 32. [Comment] Sheet labels. Small clerical error. What should be labels sheets "C6" and "C7" are both labeled "C6" on the plan sheets. 33. [Comment] Signature lines. On the Cover Sheet, please replace the signature line intended for "Architectural Review Board" with a signature line for "E911". 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. Rev. 2: 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. Rev. 2: Comment 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 ft 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. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. 9. Ensure parallel parking spaces meet requirements (9ftx20ft). 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. Rev.2: The calculations did not print on the plan. The label is there, but the excel tables are not. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Brian Becker, bbecker(ar,,albemarie.org — Requests Changes, see comments below 1. Critical Issues: Hills Ridge Road and White Oak Way are unacceptable road names. • Comments: The Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual limits the number of road names that can begin with the same word to five, and both "Hills" and "White" exceeds the limit. Please provide alternate road names for Hills Ridge Road and White Oak Way. The provided road names Aspen Drive and Beech Tree Terrace are acceptable road names. The previously provided road names Comer Oak Drive, Flat Branch Lane, Hall of Oaks Drive, Ridge Road, and Zelkova Drive are still acceptable. Resources • A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here: https:Hgisweb.albemarle.org/gisdata/Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual.pdf • Albemarle County Master Road Names Directory: https:Hlfweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNamelndex Albemarle County Building Inspections Michael Dellinger, mdellinger@albemarle.org — No Objection Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Shawn Maddox, smaddox&Wbemarle.org — No Objection Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Nelson, melson(i�serviceauthoritv.org — No Objection Virginia Department of Transportation Adam Moore, adam.moore(a),vdot.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 mgleason"bemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for further information. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 October 27, 2020 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Emily Cox and Mariah Gleason (804) 786-2701 Fax: (804) 786,2940 Re: SUB-2020-00055 - Proffit Road Townhomes North — Road Plan - Review #3 SDP-2020-00028 - Proffit Road Townhomes North — Site Plan — Review #2 Dear Ms. Cox & Ms. Gleason: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated 9- 25-2020 and 10-08-2020, and find them to be generally acceptable. 1. Though the warrants are not met solely by this development they will contribute greatly to the warrants being met for opposing left turn lanes when the southern property develops. 2. Proffit Road is S.R. 649 not 749 and will be verified on approval copy. 3. Traffic counts are now 7800 instead of 7500 and will be verified on approval copy. 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 �� OF ALB GIRGIN1P47 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 December 7, 2020 Keane Rucker Shimp Engineering 912 East High St Charlottesville, VA 22902 keane@shimp-en ing eering com RE: SDP202000028 Proffit Rd Townhomes North — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Rucker: The attached request for an exception to the screening requirements of Sec. 18-32.7.9.7 is hereby granted by the agent for the Board of Supervisors. This exception is granted for the proposed development of Lots 1-7, as shown on the plans entitled "Final Site Plan for Proffit Road Townhomes North, SDP 2020- 00028," which were prepared by Shimp Engineering and are last dated October 8, 2020, to allow the orderly development of the aforementioned lots in accordance with the approved Application Plan for ZMA201900010 and its proffers, to which this development is subject. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please contact me at (434) 296-5832 or email: meleason agalbemarle.org. Sincerely, Mariah Gleason Senior Planner, Community Development mgleason@albemarle.org SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Design Focused Engineering October 8, 2020 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ZMA2019-10 3223 Proffit Road -- Amendment to Approved ZMA2018-06 Request for Exception from Section 14-419 — Screening for Double Frontage Lots Narrative Supplement To Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to Section 14-203.1(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Code of Albemarle, the agent or the commission may vary or except the requirements of Section 14-419. Section 14-419 requires that double frontage lots shall be screened as provided in Section 18-32.7.9.7. Section 18-32.7.9.7 requires that double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the rear of the residences and the public right-of-way when deemed necessary by the agent. The applicant for ZMA2019-10 does hereby request an exception from the screening requirements for double frontage lots to allow for the development at 3223 Profit Road (TMP 32A-02-2) to be constructed in accordance with the ZMA concept plan prepared by Shimp Engineering, whereby lots in Block A Area 1 front on Profit Road and are rear loaded from public Road B With regard to the landscaping for double frontage lots exception request, please consider the following analysis from Section 14-203.1(B)(3): 3223 Proffit Road is located on Proffit Road, which is identified as a `Perpendicular Main Street' by the County's Places29 Master Plan. Perpendicular Main Streets provide the only vehicular connection from Route 29 to a parallel road. As a major connector of the existing and redeveloping urban fabric of the County, development should be sensitive of conditions to create a street section that is inviting of multimodal transportation. In conjunction with this exception request, a separate request for allowing double frontage lots is being submitted as well. The request for double frontage lots seeks to establish an active, multi -modal street section on Proffit Road, a `Perpendicular Main Street.' In order to create an inviting urban streetscape on Profit Road, home should have their front doors on Proffit Road, with rear - loaded garages. Section 14-419 and Section 18-32-7.9.7 would require that a screening buffer be installed between the townhomes fronting on Profit Road and public Road White Oak Way. A screening buffer at this location would disconnect these residential units from the rest of the 3223 Proffit Road neighborhood. Granting these requests would allow for a cohesive development on Proffit Road that encourages external and internal connectivity for residents and the surrounding community.