Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100053 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-08-06of Al a$ r County of Albemarle O � M Memorandum To: Rob Cummings; Kirk Hughes and Associates (rob&khals.net) From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner, Planning Division Date: August 6, 2021 Subject: SDP2021-00053 — Old Trail Block 32 Lots 34-40 — Final Site Plan 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 Telephone:434-296-5832 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will recommend approval of 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.) New Comments — First Review of Old Trail Block 32 Lots 34-40 — Final Site Plan (SDP2021- 00053): 1) Revise the title of this site plan. It is a final site plan, not an amendment. Include the application number that was assigned — SDP2021-00053. In addition, reference lots 93 and 94 in the title as well, since they are included in the site plan. 2) Note #22 should be removed, as the final count of units — and type of those units — has changed since the approval of the original subdivision plats, which is where the numbers this note references are found. The chart identifying the number and type of units for all blocks in Old Trail must be included on this site plan. For more information, see also comment #2 of the attached memo for Planning comments that still need to be addressed from the review of the initial site plan. This chart should be available from Jeremy Fox or Roudabush, Gale, and Associates. If assistance is needed in acquiring, please let me know. 3) The sidewalk along the fronts of these lots, in Pocket Park A, is a required part of this site plan, as these are amenity -oriented lots. Include this sidewalk in the project area, and provide all relevant information about the sidewalk on the plan, including its dimensions, the material proposed to be used for its construction, and a detail of the sidewalk construction. 4) Provide the acreage of the project area on the cover sheet. 5) On the cover sheet, provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site. 6) Identify all existing easements on the site, and provide the deed book and page numbers for Review Comments Page 2 of 3 those easements. 7) Identify any proposed new or relocated easements on the site. 8) Provide a landscaping plan for any proposed landscaping. 9) Provide a lighting plan for any proposed lighting that conforms with Section 4. Of the Zoning Ordinance. 10) [Advisory Comment] A subdivision plat will need to be submitted for review and approval to relocate the property boundaries of these lots to reflect the proposed new lot boundaries, including the two additional lots that are proposed. Any new or relocated easements will also need to be shown on this subdivision plat Comments from SDP2021-00010 — Old Trail Block 32 Lots 34-40 and Pocket Parks A and B — Initial Site Plan Action Letter: See the attached memo from Planning for the comments from the review of the initial site plan. The remaining comments from the review of the initial site plan included in this memo must be addressed as well. The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2021-00010 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the review of the final site plan, SDP2021-00053, are in black font. Please address these follow- up comments as well. Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbach@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information. Comments from Other Reviewing Departments, Divisions, and Agencies Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org —No objections at this time; see the comment below: These townhouses are not expected to be visible from the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor. Consequently, ARB review is not required. Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) Emily Cox, ecox2(2albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the comments below: -WPO201800077 amendment 1 must be approved before this site plan can be approved. -Please add a note on the plan where the roof drains must be directed. Review Comments Page 3 of 3 Albemarle County Information Services (E911) Elise Kiewra, ekiewra a albemarle.org — No objections at this time. Albemarle County Building Inspections Betty Slough, bslou hg�a albemarle.org — Requested changes; see comments below: Note to developer: Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, underground propane tanks may be prohibited. Plan accordingly. Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue Howard Lagomarsino, hlaeomarsinogalbemarle.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Richard Nelson, melsonanserviceauthority.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Adam Moore, Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by Planning staff. Planning Division Comments from SDP2021-00010 — Old Trail Block 32 Lots 34-40 and Pocket Parks A and B — Initial Site Plan Action Letter: The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2021-00010 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the review of the final site plan, SDP2021-00053, are in black font. Please address these follow-up comments as well. 2. [32.5.2(a), ZMA2015-1 COD] On the final site plan provide a chart tracking how many units are already approved in Block 32 The maximum dwelling unit count for this block is 417 units. This will determine if the additional units are permitted. Provide the most recent updated chart for Old Trail identifying the number of units (including affordable units) built per block, so that staff can ensure that the proposed unit count meets the COD requirements for both Block 32 in particular and for the entire Old Trail development as a whole. This chart is required on all subdivision plats and site plans associated with Old Trail. Jeremy Fox or Roudabush, Gale, and Associates should have the chart if Kirk Hughes and Associates does not have the most recent version. If there are any concerns or issues in acquiring a copy of this chart, please let me know. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(b), 4.12, 4.12.8(a), 4.12.9] Alternatives available toprovide minimum number ofparking spaces. The three (3) required guest parking spaces are not provided. Per conversations with the applicant they are utilizing on -street parking to meet the minimum number of required parking spaces. The required two (2) parking spaces per lot cannot be located on the street but the guest parking spaces can. The approved road plan (SUB2018- 164) already accounts for 88 on- street parking spaces before the addition of these 3 new lots/units. Ensure additional parking spaces are available on this road to meet the minimum required guest parking space requirement for these additional units. On the cover sheet provide a note to this effect. Also, on the final site plan depict, label, and dimension the on - street parking spaces and label they are for guests. Prior to final site plan approval these spaces shall be reviewed and approved by Planning, Engineering, VDOT, and Fire Rescue. These spaces were not depicted nor labeled on the initial site plan, thus these agencies have not reviewed nor considered the appropriateness or viability of these spaces on this road. Identify on the site plan the specific locations of the three guest spaces required for these nine proposed townhouse units. In addition, provide the dimensions of these three spaces for staff to ensure that the areas provided are large enough to accommodate the parking spaces. Parking spaces are not approved with road plans. 8. [32.5.2(b), 4.12] On the cover sheet revise the parking notes # 17 and # 18 to specifically relate to these 10 proposed units. If you would like to keep the parking data you have provided for the entire development that is permitted; however, it should be clearly noted and blocked off that these notes and the data in them are for the overall development New parking notes shall be provided specifically related to these 10 proposed units. Revise note #19. This plan requires 21 spaces — two off-street spots per unit, for 18 spaces, plus three guest spaces, for a total of 21 spaces. Identify the three guest spaces that are being provided for these nine townhouse units. Clarify note #20 — it says that 88 spots, plus 2, are being provided (for a total of 90). Where is the 94 total coming from? 10. [ZMA2015-1 Proffer #2, SUB2019-1371Affordable Housing Units. The 7 original lots (Lots 34-40) in this section are designated on the final subdivision plat as required affordable housing units. On the final site plan label 7 ofthese units affordable housing units. Also, provide anote onthe cover sheetthat labels whichofthe 7 lots are affordable housing units. Label the seven (7) designated Affordable Housing Units on the site plan layout sheet as well as the note on the cover sheet. 13. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all improvements depicted onthe final site plan to include, driveways, the townhomes, all sidewalks, and all other improvements. The 5' sidewalk that fronts these parcels (in Pocket Park A) must be shown on this site plan and constructed as part of this development, as these are amenity -oriented lots. The depiction on the road plans was for informational purposes only. Revise the plan to include this sidewalk Please also note that this development is subject to the zoning and setback requirements established in the Code of Development approved with ZMA2015-00001, not Chapter 18 of the County Code. 18. [32.5.2(n)] On the final site plan label all the proposed paving material types for all sidewalks, parking areas, and driveways. See comment #13 above. The sidewalk in Pocket Park A must be included in this site plan, as these are proposed to be amenity -oriented lots. Provide the proposed paving material(s) for the sidewalks. 24. [Comment] Contrary to our previous discussions there is not an approved initial site plan nor an approved final site plan for this specific section of townhomes. Rather there is an approved final subdivision plat (SUB2019-137) and anapproved road plan (SUB2018- 164). Comment persists. Please be aware that this site plan is not an amendment, as there is no existing site plan for this application to amend.