HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900076 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2009-11-03vIRGIN�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott @collins- engineering.com)
Justin Beights- March Mountain Properties (justin @beights.com)
From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner
Division: Zoning & Current Development
Date: October 6, 2009
Revl: November 3, 2009
Subject: SDP - 2009 -076- Old Trail Blocks 4, 11, 13, 14- Preliminary Site Plan
The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County
Department Community Development will recommend approve 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.]
1. [32.5.6 (a)] If the plat for this area has been recorded and a new tax map and parcel
number is available, please revise to show the new information.
Revl: Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.6 (b)] Revise parking table to include total amount provided and total amount
required. Also, check the parking table, some of the totals and numbers are not correct.
One is the total for required residential parking- one of the numbers was missed for block
11. Make sure that all the subtotals for each block are being shown in the chart, some are
missing, specifically for parking provided on lots and shared parking lot. It appears that
another column needs to be added to subtotal the blocks for provided parking.
Revl: Comment addressed
3. [32.5.6 (b)] From my calculations, it appears that there is 359 parking spaces provided,
and 433 required. Therefore, the plan is short 74 parking spaces. Revise the plan to meet
the required number of spaces.
Revl: Comment not addressed. A parking agreement must be submitted in order to
have shared parking and to meet the parking requirements.
4. [32.5.6 (b)] The LA for Block 11, units 40 through 44 are incorrect. Revise to the correct
LA.
Revl: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.6 (b)] On the title sheet it states that the shared parking is subject to zoning
approval, however no shared parking agreement and information has been submitted.
Revl: Comment not addressed. A parking agreement must be submitted prior to
preliminary approval in order to have shared parking and meet the parking
requirements.
6. [32.5.6 (c)] Show the phase lines and proposed timing of development.
Revl: Comment addressed.
7. [Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 13 and 14 the single family setback for
the front yard is ten (10) feet- the porches in these blocks encroach into this setback. Per
the zoning ordinance 18- 4.11.1 the front porch may encroach into the setback a
maximum of four (4) feet, so the porch would be at least six (6) feet from the property
line, however many of the single family units are encroaching more than the four feet
allowed. Revise to meet this requirement.
Revl: The Code of Development does specify a minimum eight (8) foot build to line,
which contradicts the setbacks for the single family units. Apply for a variation
during final site plan to clarify this requirement.
8. [Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] Blocks 4 and 11- the rear yard setbacks are
fifteen (15) feet minimum for townhouses. Revise to meet this requirement.
Revl: Comment addressed.
9. [Proffer #2- Affordable Housing] Show on the plan which units are the affordable units.
Revl: Comment addressed.
10. [Code of Development] In Block 13, Lots 7 through 10 do not front on a green mall as
required by the Code of Development. Revise to either front on a public street, or on a
green mall.
Revl: Comment addressed.
11. [Code of Development, Page 25- Table 4] Office is not an allowable use in Block 14.
Revise to show a use that is allowable in that Block.
Revl: Comment addressed.
12. [Proffer #2- Affordable Housing] No more than 30% shall be for rent apartments. This
plan is showing 58.2% for rent apartments. Revise so that there are no more than 30% for
rent apartments.
Revl: Comment addressed.
13. [Code of Development, Page 36- Spatial Enclosure] Reference the table 6A for the
requirements for spatial enclosure. Many of the buildings are not meeting the
requirement, specifically between Block 13 apartment building and Block 2. Revise the
buildings to meet these requirements.
Revl: Comment not addressed. The apartment building in Block 13 does not meet
the requirements. The spatial enclosure must be met during preliminary, or a
variation must be submitted and approved before preliminary approval.
14. [Code of Development, Page 31- Table 7] The distance to the garage or carport shall be
five (5) feet or sixteen (16) feet or more, but not in between. Revise single family lots to
meet this requirement.
Revl: Comment not addressed. Engineering has determined that a 5 foot setback is
not acceptable for safe and convenient access and is requiring the 16 feet setback; a
variation must be submitted and approved if the 16 foot setback is not desired.
Additional Comments to be addressed at Final Site Plan:
1. Table 3: Street Specifications in the Code of Development does not allow for a
reduction in rights of way widths. Apply for a variation to clarify the notes to allow
variable rights of way when the dimensions of the streets and parking lanes are
allowed to be adjusted.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext.
3004 for further information.
2