HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100070 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-04-22County of Albemarle
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
-_
Charlottesville, VA22902-4579
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Jeremy Fox
Timmons Group
608 Preston Ave., Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22903
ieremy.fox@timmons.com
FROM: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner II
DATE: April 22, 2022
RE: SDP2021-00070 Old Trail Block 7C Final Site Plan; 2nd Review
phone: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.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable
reference to the Albemarle County Code.] Remaining comments from SDP2021-00036 are listed first. New
comments from the review of SDP2021-00070 follow.
Comments from SDP2021-00036 - Old Trail Block 7C Initial Site Plan Action Letter:
The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2021-00036 are in gray font. Follow-up comments
from the review of the final site plan, SDP2021-00070, are in bolded black font. Please address these follow-up
comments as well.
1. [32.5.2(a)] Include the application number for this project on the cover sheet of the plan. Clarify the application
number for this plan (SDP2021-00070) and that for the initial site plan, which is SDP2021-00036. The current
title says "Initial SDP202300070." Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Has a special exception been approved for this property to allow a reduction in the width of the WPO
stream buffer around the pond? If so, provide the special exception number for reference, along with any conditions
included with its approval. If there is no special exception approved, either 1) the lots will need to be moved out of
the stream buffer, or 2) a special exception application will need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors to
allow such encroachment. This information needs to be included on the cover sheet of the final site plan, under
the zoning note - to include the date of approval by the BOS and the conditions of approval by the BOS. Comment
addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Subdivision and/or BLA plats will be required for any of the structures that are proposed to be located
on individual parcels. These plats will require review and approval by CDD staff prior to their recordation at the
courthouse. The plats must be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the County's Ordinances. Comment remains.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide more information on the open space parcel that is proposed to be adjusted along the west side
of the property. Include this entire parcel on the site plan so that staff can ensure all regulations for this parcel will
still be met with the proposed boundary line adjustment. This comment has not been addressed. The lot is being
adjusted by significantly more square footage than 300 sq. ft. It appears that entire residential lots are being
included in this area - Lot 45 and Lot 46. Staff recognizes that more information and clarity may be provided once
the proposed subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Since parcel D1 is also being included in this development, it needs to be identified as such on the cover sheet,
with all the appropriate information. Include parcel D1 in the parcel area section on the cover sheet, as there are
proposed residential lots located in this area.
5. [32.5.2(b)] Provide on the cover sheet the gross residential density for both this phase of the development and for
Block 7 overall. Comment not addressed. The overall gross density should be the total number of units in Block 7
divided bythe total acreage amount of Block 7 (all phases), not the individual gross densities each added together.
6. [32.5.2(b); 4.12.61 Parking. There is not sufficient parking provided for this development. As attached units with
parking proposed on individual lots, there must be 1 guest space provided per 4 units. With 30 units proposed, a
minimum of 8 guest spaces must be provided on the site. Update the parking schedule on the cover sheet to reflect
these required spaces, and identify the locations of these guest spaces on the layout plan. In addition, several of
the garages and driveways do not appear to meet the minimum dimensional requirements to count as required
parking spaces. This comment has not been addressed. Guest parking spaces must be common areas, not on
individual lots. Provide at least 8 parking spaces in common areas to allow for guest parking. Add these eight
spaces to the parking schedule on the cover sheet.
Provide dimensions for the garages and driveways. Staff cannot determine whether they meet the required
minimum size to count for parking spaces. Provide widths for the driveways. It appears that garage widths were
provided, but not for the driveways.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travelways.
a. Identify all proposed access easements. Access easements will require an approved plat. Easement plat is required.
b. Is the sidewalk along Lot 40 that connects to the trail proposed to be in the right-of-way or in the lot? Appropriate
easements will be required. It is still unclear where the northern property line of Lot 40 is located, whether at the
edge of the private street or at the edge of the sidewalk. Comment addressed.
c. As the sidewalk and planting strip along Old Trail Drive is depicted outside of the right-of-way, it must have an
access easement placed over it. Comment still applies. Easements have to be platted. Depicting them on a site plan
only is not sufficient. This easement will also require approval by VDOT.
8. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements.
a. Confirm the width and length of each driveway and each garage. To count as required parking spaces, there must
be at least 9 feet of width provided for each space. In addition, there must be at least 18 feet in length provided for
each space, either in the garage or for the driveway (outside of the right-of-way line). Several driveways (e.g., Lots
40-43) and garages do not appear to meet the minimum requirements and cannot count for required parking spaces.
The widths of the driveways do not appear to be labelled on the layout plan.
b. Identify the front setbacks for Lots 47-56. As amenity -oriented lots, their front setbacks must be measured from
the open space. The front setbacks of lots 47-56 have not been identified. The front setback for these lots is
measured from the open space. I do not see a label or line identifying these setbacks on any plan sheet. The 25'
maximum line must be measured from the edge of the open space parcel (the boundary line between the open
space and the lots), not from Orion Lane.
c. The front -loading garages in Lots 40-46 must be shifted farther back from the right-of-way. As front -loading
garages, they must be located three feet behind the principal or primary line of the front fa4ade of the houses (see
page 9 of the COD). Identify these dimensions on the plan. Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(o)] Identify all areas proposed to be dedicated to public use, and identify the entity (VDOT, the County, etc.)
to which those areas will be dedicated. The dedication will require a plat or plats. Comment still applies. Plat
required.
10. [32.5.20); 32.5.2 (k)] Label all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage easements by type and
include a size/width measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded
instrument. For proposed easements, an easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and
recorded at the courthouse prior to approval of the final site plan being granted. Comment still applies. Plat required
for all new easements.
11. [32.5.2 (I)] Label all existing and proposed utility easements by type and include a size/width measurement. For
existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument. For proposed easements, an
easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded at the courthouse prior to approval of
the final site plan being granted. Comment still applies. Plat required for all new easements.
12. [32.5.2(p); 32.7.9] A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance must be submitted
with the final site plan. With site plan review now occurring along this section of Old Trail Drive, street trees will
need to be provided in the strip along Old Trail Drive. Update the planting schedule. It appears there are eight
trees along Old Trail Drive and 36 trees total on the site plan.
It is always preferred that street trees are located in the public right-of-way. If, however, some trees are situated
outside of the public right-of-way, they will need to be located within an easement (with appropriate maintenance
agreements) prior to approval of the site plan/subdivision plat. Comment still applies.
Provide calculations on how the trees included in the site plan reach a canopy of 12,212 sq.ft. The planting
schedule still states 12,212, not the 15,322 sq.ft. identified in the comment response letter.
13. [ZMA2015-00001] Identify the number of units proposed to be affordable, in accordance with the ZMA. In
addition, include the affordable unit language from the proffers in the site plan. The approved proffer statement
needs to be included as a sheet(s) in the site plan. Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(r)] There are several units labelled "ADU" on the layout plan. Provide this acronym in the legend to identify
what it stands for. It is unclear whether it is proposed to indicate "affordable" or "accessory" dwelling units. Clarify
this label. It does not appear that any accessory dwelling units are included with these parcels. They appear to be
the designated affordable housing units. If this is the case, the legend needs to be revised to identify these
dwellings as the affordable ones. Comment addressed.
15. [General Comment] Provide an updated chart for Old Trail to include this phase, identifying the number of
residential units provided in each block, as well as the number of affordable units, for staff to ensure the proffered
requirements are continuing to be met. Revise the chart. The proposed Affordable Dwelling Units do not appear
to be "for rent" apartments.
Also, provide an updated chart for the green/open spaces in Old Trail to include the proposed new areas in this
block. It does not appear this chart was included with this submittal. Include the chart on one of the sheets of
the final site plan.
16. [General Comment] The HOA documents and other maintenance agreements for Old Trail will need to be revised
to include this phase of development and any improvements that will be commonly owned by the HOA. Comment
still applies.
New Comments - Old Trail Block 7C Final Site Plan (SDP2021-00070):
1. [General Comment] The signature lines for the Health Dept. and the ARB need to be removed from the
signature panel on the cover sheet. Comment addressed.
2. [ACSA] Planning staff will defer to the Service Authority; however, it is likely that structures cannot be
located within ACSA easements. At a minimum, a portion of Lot 43's structure is located within the proposed
ACSA easement. Comment addressed. ACSA has no objections at this time. See below.
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 and Agencies
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Emily Cox, ecox2Ca�albemarle.orQ - Requested changes; see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemarle.org - No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Betty Slough, bslough@albemarle.ore - No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue (ACFR)
Howard Lagomarsino, hla¢omarsino@albemarle.ore - Requested changes; see the comments below:
1) The road plans analysis you mention in your correspondence is a diferent analysis than this review. Since the
travelway for Fennel is only 26 ft (the road plans did not go into the detail and specifics of a site plan ... only showed
variable width right of way and that analysis is does the right of way make it possible to install a code compliant
fire aparatus access road, which it did make it possible, but the details are on a site plan). Based on your site plan
showing a 26 foot travelway width, parking is not permitted along the travelway since even parking on one side
will reduce the travelway below the minimum required width for fire apparatus acess roads. Please indicate on the
plans no parking signs on both sides of Fennel as requested on the initial site plan review.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthority.org — No objections at this time.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Doug McAvoy, douglas.mcavoy@vdot.virginia.eov - No objections at this time; see the attached memo.
�$ County of Albemarle
m COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
To: Andy Reitelbach
From: Emily Cox
Date: 26 Oct, 2021
Rev. 1: 08 April 2022
Subject: Old Trail Block 7C - Final (SDP202100036)
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Telephone: 434-296-5832
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
The Old Trail Block 7C — Final Site Plan has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments
will need to be addressed before approval:
1. VSMP Plan WP0202100024 must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. Road plan SLJB202100084 must be approved before final site plan can be approved. Rev.
1: Road plan is approved. Road plan must be bonded before final site plan can be
approved.
3. Please show all easements on the landscaping sheet. Rev. 1: Comment still applies.
4. Update public storm easement based on comments on WPO & road plan. Easement will
need to be recorded before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still
applies.
5. Please add note regarding roof drain outlets. Ensure there are splash blocks to prevent
concentrated flow. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
March 28, 2022
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Old Trail Block 7C — Final Site Plan
SDP-2021-00070
Review #2
Dear Mr. Langille:
(804) 7862701
Fax: (804) 7862940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Timmons Group, dated 20
January 2022, and finds them generally acceptable.
If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113.
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,
Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING