HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100005 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2011-03-29*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Gerald Gatobu, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 29 March 2011
Subject: Belvedere Block 4A Final Before Preliminary Site Plan (SDP-2011-00005)
The first revision to the final before preliminary site plan for the Belvedere Block 4A, received 11 March
2011, has been reviewed. Engineering review for current development can recommend approval to this
plan after the following comments are addressed.
1. The recently submitted boundary line adjustment plat must be recorded prior to the approval of
this site plan or the applicant must provide a note stating that no building permit for this project
will be submitted until this boundary line adjustment is recorded.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant.
2. This site plan does not match the approved rezoning plan and a variation must be approved by the
Planning Department.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant.
3. The Subdivision Ordinance requires all lots to front on a private or public street. The current
layout with the open space between the lots and Belvedere Blvd. does not meet this requirement
and therefore any subsequent subdivision would be prevented without the Chief of Current
Development authorizing Shadrack Alley as a private street. Alternatively, the applicant may
simply extend the lot lines to the ROW of Belvedere Blvd. and provide an easement on the front
half of the lots to the HOA. The build -to /setback lines will need to be modified and /or varied by
the Planning Department in order for this site plan to work given this comment and comment #7.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
4. An independent Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is required for the proposed disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. A stand -alone (independent, as previously stated),
full ESC plan will be required. This plan will be bonded and permitted separate from the
current mass grading /road ESC plan being managed by the county. Please provide a
completed WPO application and $150 fee to receive a review of the ESC sheet already
submitted or provide another sheet and narrative with the application.
5. Please provide the square footage of imperviousness proposed on this site plan. This number will
be checked with the assumed imperviousness for the subarea in the approved SWM plan. [18-
32.55.6.b]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. The impervious area percentage is lower than the
assumption used in the master SWM plan.
6. Many of the driveways have been graded at slopes steeper than the 5% maximum allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance. [18- 4.12.15.c] The applicant must either revise the grading plan accordingly or
submit a waiver directed to the Chief of Current Development per 18- 4.12.2.c.
(Rev. 1) Per the determination relayed to the applicant on March 11`", this comment has been
withdrawn because of the finding that the zoning ordinance is only enforced on provided
parking spaces.
7. The length of driveway outside of the alley access easement is either 15ft or 17ft depending on the
lot. In a best case scenario (where cars are parked very close to the garage door), cars parked in
the driveway will be into the alley access easement. In the more likely scenario, a few cars will
Current Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
overhang over the alley pavement itself. The townhouse building must be shifted 3ft to the
northwest so a parking space of 18ft length can be provided or a waiver must be requested to the
Chief of Current Development per 18- 4.12.2.c. [18- 4.12.16.b]
(Rev. 1) Per the determination relayed to the applicant on March 11`h, this comment has been
withdrawn because of the finding that the zoning ordinance is only enforced on provided
parking spaces.
The roofdrain system should provide at least two small surface inlets in the common area at the
low point of the swale so there is not a continual soggy condition in the lawn.
(Rev. 1) There are no county ordinance sections that require that no sump conditions are
provided on site plans, so the grading as shown is acceptable. Please note that the inlets were
not provided at the low points of the swale. A modification to the plan is only a
recommendation, not a requirement.
File: E2_PBC_fsp_sdp201100005 Belvedere 4A.doc