HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100070 Correspondence 2022-07-25608 Preston Avenue P 434.295.5624
Suite 200 IF434.295.1800
T I M M O N S GROUP
Charlottesville, VA 22903 wwwAimmons.com
July 5, 2022
Andrew Reitelbach
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Old Trail Block 7C — Final Site Plan 2nd Review— SDP202100070 -Comment Response
Letter
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
We have reviewed all of your comments from April 22, 2022 and made the necessary revisions.
Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering.
1. [32.5.2(a)] Include the application number for this project on the cover sheet of the
plan.
Application number has been included.
Rev. 1: 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 SDP202100070."
Final Site Plan number has been added to the cover sheet.
Rev. 2: 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 umber 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.
Rev. 1: 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.
Information has been included under the zoning note on the cover sheet.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY
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.
Rev. 1: Comment remains.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: Comment remains.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
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.
Rev. 1: 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.
Rev. 1: 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.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review. D1 information has been added to the
coversheet.
Rev. 2: Include parcel D1 in the parcel area section on the cover sheet, as there are
proposed residential lots located in this area.
Parcel D1 has been added to the total parcel area.
Rev. 2: 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.
Please see plat for clarity. This open space is currently parcel 35A and 0.6 acres. The
new open space is proposed to be 0.04 acres and creates a new lot line to the
boundary. Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
S. [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.
Rev.1: Comment not addressed.
Total gross density for Block 7 has been added to the cover sheet.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. The overall gross density should be the total number of
units in Block 7 divided by the total acreage amount of Block 7 (all phases), not the
individual gross densities each added together.
Total gross density has been updated to include the 56 units over the 4.84 acres in
Block 7.
6. [32.5.2(b); 4.12.6] 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
Rev. 1: 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.
Rev. 2: Add these eight spaces to the parking schedule on the cover sheet.
Spaces have been added to the parking schedule on the cover sheet.
Rev. 1: Provide dimensions for the garages and driveways. Staff cannot determine
whether they meet the required minimize size to count for parking spaces.
(8) On -street parking spaces have been striped for guest spaces. Dimensions have
been added to the parking spaces.
Rev. 2: Provide widths for the driveways. It appears that garage widths were provided,
but not for the driveways.
Driveway width of 16' and 18' have been shown as a typical dimension for the two
unit types.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travelways.
a. Identify all proposed access easements. Access easements will require an
approved plat.
An easement sheet has been added for clarification.
Rev. 1: Easement plat is required.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: Easement plat is required.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
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.
An easement sheet has been added for clarification.
Rev. 1: 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.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: 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.
Rev. 1: 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.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: 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.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
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.
Rev. 1: The widths of the garages and driveways do not appear to be labelled on
the layout plan.
An 18' driveway line has been included to avoid plan clutter. Lots 40, 41, and
42 are the only ones that cannot meet the 18' driveway. The smallest garage
width is 21'. Typical garage dimensions for each unit type have been added to
the plan and all counted spaces match the parking calculations shown on the
coversheet.
Rev. 2: The widths of the driveways do not appear to be labelled on the layout
plan.
Driveway width of 16' has been shown as a typical dimension.
b. Identify the front setbacks for Lots 47-56. As amenity -oriented lots, their front
setbacks must be measured from the open space.
Front setback for Lots 47-56 has been identified.
Rev. 1: The front setbacks of lots 47-56 have not been identified. The front
setback for these lots is measured from the open space.
The setbacks in this block are 0'. The houses are within maximum 25' of the
open space parcel line behind the sidewalk. Open space requirement is a
minimum of 30' per our COD so units would be outside of the maximum
allowable setback if required to be measured from the open space parcel along
Orion Lane.
Rev. 2: 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.
25' front setback line has been added and labeled on the layout sheet (C4.0).
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 fagade of the houses (see page 9 of the
COD).
Rev. 1: Identify these dimensions on the plan.
3' dimension has been added to show the garage setback from the facade of
the house.
Rev. 2: 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.
Rev. 1: Comment still applies. Plat required.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: Comment still applies. Plat required.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
10. [32.5.2(j); 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.
Rev. 1: Comment still applies. Plat required for all new easements.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: Comment still applies. Plat required for all new easements.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
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.
Rev. 1: Comment still applies. Plat required for all new easements.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: Comment still applies. Plat required for all new easements.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
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.
Rev. 1: 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.
Rev. 2: Update the planting schedule. It appears there are eight trees along Old Trail
Drive and 36 tree total on the site plan.
Schedule has been updated to reflect the total trees on the site and the required
street tree calculations.
Rev. 1: 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.
Rev. 1: Provide calculations on how the trees included in the site plan reach a canopy of
12,212 sq. ft.
Rev. 2: The planting schedule still states 12,212, not the 15,322 sq. ft. identified in the
comment response letter.
Schedule has been updated to reflect the correct provided quantity of 15,774 sf.
Trees have been added along Old Trail Drive. The canopy provided is now 15,322 sf
and is taken from the amount of canopy on the plant schedule that each species
provides and then multiplied by the number of trees of that species provided. The
added total is 15,322 sf on the revised plans.
Rev. 2: Comment still applies.
Schedule has been updated.
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.
Rev. 1: The approved proffer statement needs to be included as a sheet(s) in the site
plan.
Proffer statement has been added to the end of the sheet set as P1.0.
Rev. 2: 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.
ADU "Accessory dwelling units" has been noted in C4.0 Layout sheet.
Rev. 1: 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.
Legend has been revised to say affordable.
Rev. 2: 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.
Rev. 1: Revise the chart. The proposed Affordable Dwelling Units do not appear to be
"for rent" apartments.
The updated chart has been included with the submittal.
Also, provide an updated chart for the green/open spaces in Old Trail to include the
proposed new areas in this block.
Rev. 1: It does not appear this chart was included with this submittal.
The updated chart has been included with the submittal and includes the green areas
throughout Old Trail in various blocks.
Rev. 2: Include the chart on one of the sheets of the final site plan.
The chart has been provided on sheet L2.0
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.
Rev. 1: Comment still applies.
Supplemental declaration will be updated with this development.
Rev. 2: Comment still applies.
Acknowledged.
New Comments — Old Trail Block 7C Final Site Plan (SDP2021-00070):
1. [General Comment] The signature lines for the Health Department and the ARB need to
be removed from the signature panel on the cover sheet.
Line items have been removed.
Rev. 2: 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.
Revised plans match the road plans which have been approved by ASCA.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed. ACSA has no objections at this time. See below.
Acknowledged.
Comments from Other Reviewing Departments and Agencies
Albemarle County Engineering Services — Engineer - Emily Cox (SDP202100036):
1. VSMP Plan WPO202100024 must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
WPO plan has been approved.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. Road Plan SUB202100084 must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
Road plan has been approved.
Rev. 1: Road plan is approved. Road plan must be bonded before final site plan ca be
approved.
Bonds have been approved and posted.
3. Please show all easements on the landscaping sheet.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 1: Comment still applies.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
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.
Subdivision plat has been submitted for review.
Rev. 2: Comment still applies.
Plat has been resubmitted for approval.
5. Please add note regarding roof drain outlets. Ensure there are splash blocks to prevent
concentrated flow.
Splash block detail has been added to the notes and details.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Albemarle County Information Services — E911— Elise Kiewra:
No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Building Inspections— Betty Slough:
No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Fire -Rescue — (ACFR) — Howard Laeomarsino:
1. The road plans analysis you mention in your correspondence is a different 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
apparatus 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 access roads. Please indicate on the plans no
parking signs on both sides of Fennel as requested on the initial site plan review.
Plan coincides with the approved road plan.
Albemarle County Service Authority —ACSA— Richard Nelson:
No objections at this time.
Virginia Department of Transportation — VDOT — Adam Moore:
No objections at this time.
We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any
questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.327.5382 or email at
Jeremy.fox@timmons.com.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Fox, PE
Project Engineer III