Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900076 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2010-01-04vIRGIN� 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 Rev2: January 4, 2010 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. Rev2: Comment not addressed. Parking Analysis missing from Sheet 6, therefore a review could not be completed. 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. A shared parking agreement was received and is now being reviewed by Zoning. 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. A variation will be submitted during final. 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. Apartment building has been rotated and now meets the spatial enclosure requirements. 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. Rev]: 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 1° —',w,; -Pd and approved if the 16 foot setback is not desired. Rev2: Comment addressed Additional Comments to be addressed at Final Site Plan: 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. Rev2: Comment addressed. Variation request is now under review. However, the request would better serve you if you asked for a variation to change note #6 that is associated with Table 3: Street Specifications on page 23 of the Code of Development. Note #6 allows the dimensions of the streets and parking lanes to change during final site plan, and by changing this language to also include right of way widths (and anything else in the chart that you may want to potentially change from what is listed), this would allow future changes to other streets/blocks where you may want to make 2 the same adjustment. If you would like to make this your request instead, just fill out another Variation Request application with the new information /request and the new language for note #6 and I will forward it onto Claudette for review. No new fee will be required. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information.