Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900156 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2020-12-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434)296-5832 December 15, 2020 Alan Franklin 427 Cranberry Lane Crozet VA 22932 RE: SUB201900156 Rivanna Village Phase 2 — Road Plans Dear Sir: [ZMA201300012 Proffer 31 Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall either construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or bond these improvements prior to approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the development... " Staff is aware that the entrance improvements onto Rte. 250 are currently bonded; however, no road plan was ever submitted or approved for these improvements. It is recommended that the bonds be recalculated to match this road plan. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Rev 2. Comment still relevant. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 2. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 7, COD 5.4.2, COD 5.4.3, 32.5.2(0), 32.7.1.3(a), 32.7.1, 32.7.1.1, 14-428, 14-429] Route 250 Landscape Buffer and Right of Way Dedication. The reservation zone and the landscape buffer shall be reserved for public use and dedication upon the request of the County. Provide the following note on the plan: "The 70' wide reservation zone and 30' wide landscape buffer are hereby reserved for future dedication for public use upon demand of the County. " "The maintenance and upkeep of these areas and their landscaping shall be the responsibility of the HOA until the County demands dedication and accepts it. " Rev 1. Comment addressed. 3. [Comment] The road plan does not match the latest version of the site plan. Many of the charts and calculations are not the most up to date. Additionally, the proposed lot layouts differ. Revise the road plan to match the latest version of the site plan. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 4. [COD Sec 7.1, 4.121 The proposed phasing is not approvable because all of the required parking spaces for the park use are not provided in the same phase as the park, Phase 2A. Additionally, half of a guest space is located in Phase 2A, which is truly required for phase 213. Revise the phasing to include all required parking for the use. Rev 1. Comment not addressed. The park is now in Phase 2B; however, some of the on -street spaces for the park are located in Phase 2A. Revise. Rev 2. The note provided on sheet 4 is blacked out and very hard to read. Please correct this issue so it is legible. Also, the content of the note has changed since we initially discussed this option. Phase 2A and phase 2F must be platted and fully constructed before phase 2B is approved, bonding of phase 2A and phase 2F will not suffice, as phase 2B is reliant on the parking from phase 2A and phase 2F. Revise the note to reflect this. Rev 3. The revised plan omits sheet 4 that I previously reviewed and approved in August through email. Please add it back to the road plans. email. Please add it back to the road plans. 5. [COD Sec 7.1, 4.121 The approved parking determination for the community park permits on street parking spaces within 500' from the proposed use. On sheet 4 revise the parking radius to depict a 500' radius from the closest park boundary. Please ensure all required on street parking spaces for the park are provided within the radius. Currently only 99 on street parking spaces marked for the park were found on the plan; however, the site plan calculates that 108 are required based on modified use numbers, additionally the plans state 122 are provided. Revise to ensure the minimum number of parking spaces are provided to serve the use within 500' radius. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 6. [Comment] Prior to road plan approval provide signed agreements from all the effected property owners granting permission for offsite grading and driveway improvements outside the public right-of-way. The only offsite work appears to be on TMP 80-58A. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Rev 2. Comment still relevant. An approved road plan allows for construction, therefore without the signed agreements from all effected property owners granting permission for offsite grading and driveway improvements outside the public right-of-way the road plan shall not be approved. Rev3. Comment addressed as applicant provided the signed agreement. 7. [COD Sec 5.2, Sheet 5 Exhibit B] Dimension and label all sidewalks and landscape strips. Additionally, throughout the plan list the construction material of the sidewalks. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 8. [COD Sec 5.21 Street Trees. Provide street tree calculations for the proposal. Additionally, for bonding purposes separate and label all street trees within the planting schedule. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 9. [COD Sec 5.21 Street Trees. The Ostrya virginiana/American Hophombeam is a small deciduous tree, however, all street trees are required to be large deciduous trees a minimum of 2" caliper each. Discontinue the use of this specific planting for street trees and replace them with a large deciduous species a min of 2" caliper. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 10. [COD Sec 5.21 Street Trees. The Lagerstroemia indica/crapemyrtles fronting Block D shall be revised to a large deciduous tree species a min of 2" caliper. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 11. [COD Sec 5.21 Street Trees. Staff found 30 plantings of (LS) Liquidambar styraciflua/Rotundiloba Sweetgum along streets on page 55 and page 56, however, the planting schedule only provides for 21 plantings. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 12. [Comment] There are 43 Swamp White Oak trees listed in the planting schedule, however, only 28 were found. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 13. [Comment] Remove lots J58 and J59. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 14. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulations. The front setbacks in Block G are listed as 15', however, the setback line scales to 10'. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 15. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulations. The rear setbacks for Lots G-1 through G12 are listed as 5', however, they scale to 8'. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 16. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulations. The front setbacks of Lots HI through H-4 are listed as 10', however, they scale to 8'. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 17. [COD Sec 3.31 Lot Regulations. Lot J-39 front setbacks on Lazy Branch Lane are labeled as 10', however, they scale to 15'. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 18. [COD Sec 3.3, Table 3.3(4)] Lot Regulations. Lot I-39 shall have a 10' front setback facing the turnaround for the public street. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using coerezAalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3443 forfurther information or ifyou have questions.