HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100053 Correspondence 2021-10-28Old Trial Block 32, Lots 34-40
Comment/Response Memorandum #2
Date: October 28, 2021
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
In response to the following comments dated August 6, 2021 please find the inserted responses
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.
(Response) Title Revised
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.
(Response) Original Note #22 removed and Chart added to plans.
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. Indude 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.
(Response) Detail and Proposed sidewalk construction grades added.
4) Provide the acreage of the project area on the cover sheet.
(Response) Project Acreage added within new note 425.
5) On the cover sheet, provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site.
(Response) Project approximate impervious area added within note #25.
6) Identify all existing easements on the site, and provide the deed book and page numbers for those
easements.
(Response) Easements noted.
7) Identify any proposed new or relocated easements on the site.
(Response) Easements area as recorded.
8) Provide a landscaping plan for any proposed landscaping.
(Response) No landscaping proposed with this plan. See Roudabush plans for proposed landscaping within Pocket
Park "A"
9) Provide a lighting plan for any proposed lighting that conforms with Section 4. of the Zoning Ordinance.
Kirk Hughes & Associates - Land Surveyors & Planners
220 East High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 1 Voice: (434) 296-6942 1 Email: kirk@khals.net
Micro Business Certified SWaM Certification #697836
(Response) No additional lighting proposed other than normal residential lighting.
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.
(Response) Subdivision Plat has been submitted for review.
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 followup 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.
(Response) Comment acknowledge.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Emily Cox, ecox2@albemarle.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.
(Response) Our understanding that the WPO amendment has been tentatively approved. Roof drain discharge
requirement noted in New Note #24.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemade.org — No objections at this time.
(Response) Comment acknowledge.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Betty Slough, bslough@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.
(Response) Comment acknowledge.
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Howard Lagomarsino, hlagomarsino@albemade.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to
applicant upon receipt by Planning staff.
(Response) See attached "Fire -Rescue Reviewer Comments Response notes.pdf
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthodty.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to
applicant upon receipt by Planning staff.
(Response) Water service line relocated as requested.
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.
(Response) Comment acknowledge re VDOT Land Use Permit requirement. Please note no work is proposed
within the Public Right of Way.
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.
(Response) Chart Added to Site Plan and Subdivision Plan.
7. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(b), 4.12, 4.12.8(a), 4.12.9] Alternatives available to provide minimum number of
parking 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 (SUB20 18- 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 onstreet 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.
(Response) Parking spaces for Note on Parking Exhibit. One each are located in the front of Lots 47, 87, and 90.
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?
(Response) RGA plan allows for 89 Guest parking. With this plan (parking exhibit) we note the 3 "Guest parking"
spaces totaling 92 spaces. See prior comment above.
10. [ZMA2015-1 Proffer #2, SUB2019-137] Affordable 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 of these units affordable housing units. Also, provide a note on the cover sheet that
labels which of the 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.
(Response) Affordable Housing Units shown on Note #6
13. [32.5.2(n)] Label and dimension all improvements depicted on the 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.
(Response) Sidewalk Plan added to site plan.
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.
(Response) Note revised.
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 amenityoriented lots. Provide the proposed paving
material(s) for the sidewalks.
(Response) Detail Added to sheet 3.00
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 (SUB20 19- 137) and an approved 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.
(Response) Comment Acknowledge.
Upon review if you have any questions/comments feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Rob Cumming
Project Manager
Kirk Hughes and Associates.
(434)466-4260