Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201100111 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2012-06-29Phone 434 - 296 -5832 _ p County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Memorandum To: Scott Collins (scott @collins - engineering.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date: October 10, 2011 Rev1: April 6, 2012 Rev2: June 29, 2012 Subject: SUB 2011— 00111 Belvedere Phase 2 - Preliminary Fax 434 - 972 -4126 The County of Albemarle Division of Current Development Planner will recommend approval of the plat referenced above once the following comments 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, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] Four variation applications have been submitted in association with this plat and are currently under review; comments will be provided once the review is complete. Based on the current plat submittal, there are still many elements of the layout that do not match the Code of Development and /or the Application Plan for which no variation request has been submitted; additional variations will be required. Staff is currently going through the process of determining if these design changes are variable, and will provide a list of necessary variations once our review is complete. Design changes that are not variable will require additional revisions to the plat; therefore, this list of comments is not comprehensive and is being provided only as an interim review. Rev2: Comments on the above -noted variations were provided on April 12th. Three of the four original variations have been withdrawn, and an additional variation for modifications to road sections has been submitted. Please see the accompanying engineering, zoning, and planning comments for further information regarding the variation requests. 1Code of Development] A portion of the Block 8 layout differs from the application plan including the addition of an alley, the extension of Road `G' (from the application plan, Colbert Street on the plans) to the east and north of the block, the elimination of linear park `k', and the addition of a SWM facility within the reserved road ROW; please consult with Zoning to determine if a variation must be obtained. Revl : A variation for this change to the layout has been submitted; it is currently under review. Rev2: This comment is no longer applicable. The plat has been reduced in scope and no longer includes Block 8 or the above mentioned changes. The variation request ( #44) has been withdrawn by the applicant. 2. [Comment] Permanent improvements (extension of Colbert Street, and possibly the SWM facility) are not allowed within the reserved road ROW in Block 8. A proper setback for all lots adjacent to the reserved ROW line must also be shown. Revl : A variation for this change to the layout has been submitted; it is currently under review. Rev2: This comment is no longer applicable. The plat has been reduced in scope and no longer includes Block 8 or the above mentioned changes. The variation request ( #46) has been withdrawn by the applicant. 3. [14- 302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Please provide the width of all existing or platted streets and all other rights -of -way. Rev1: Comment not addressed. The existing roads have not been labeled; provide the width of all existing roads shown. Rev2: Comment addressed. 4. [14- 302(A)9] Building sites on proposed lots. The plan appears to indicate impacts to critical slopes. If a waiver has been obtained, please provide documentation and list on the cover sheet. Otherwise, a critical slopes waiver needs to be requested and approval will have to be granted before this plan can be approved. Rev1: A critical slope waiver has been submitted; it is currently under review. Rev2: Engineering has reviewed the critical slope waiver request and has no objection. Planning also has no objection to the disturbance request. Final approval of waiver requests must be granted by the Board of Supervisors. Processing of this request should be coordinated with the variation requests; once recommendations on the variations are finalized, the variations and the critical slope waiver will be placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda. 5. [14- 302(A)14] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved. Provide the location, acreage, and current owner of all land intended to be dedicated in fee or reserved for public use, or to be reserved in a deed for the common use of lot owners in the subdivision. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Green space/open space is provided in two different areas on the cover sheet. In the `green space/open space proposed' listing, the area listed for Block 7 is inaccurate thus making the total inaccurate. This miscalculation is also included in the `cumulative open space' table. Please verify and correct all mistakes. Additionally, zoning will determine if the 0.67 `open space' included for Block 8 can count as open space since it is within the 100' ROW reservation; revision may be necessary. In the chart that compares the green space required by the ZMA to the areas proposed, the numbers provided for required Block 9 Conservation Area and Preservation Area are both inaccurate; please revise. Zoning will determine if the proposed changes to the green space, preservation area and conservation area are variable. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Green space/open space information is provided in two different areas on the cover sheet. In the `green space/open space proposed' section in the notes, the areas listed do not match the `proposed' areas provided in "Table 4 Open space: comparison with approved rezoning ". Further, the numbers provided in both areas do not correspond with the areas /acreages on the layout itself. There seems to be a duplication of the 0.09 acres of conservation area, 1.17 and 0.80 acres of preservation area that are not properly noted on the plat, there is a discrepancy in the green space number provided for Block 7, there is missing information in the `difference' column and other inconsistencies. Please verify and correct all mistakes, and make sure all numbers correspond throughout the various sheets of the plat. Label all open /conservation /preservation areas on the layout with acreages to assist comparison with the table. Additionally, during the last submittal, zoning determined that the conservation area is not variable; please clarify how the `negative' number in the conservation area column will be handled. A note stating that this plat is only for a portion of Block 9 (if that is the case) and that the remaining preservation easement and conservation area will be provided when the next portion of Block 9 is platted will be sufficient. 6. [14- 302(8)3] Public areas, facilities or uses. Please indicate the location of all areas shown on the comprehensive plan as proposed sites for public areas, facilities or uses which are located wholly or in part within the property. Rev1: Comment addressed. 7. [14- 302(B)5] Zoning classification. It appears a section of this subdivision extends beyond the NMD rezoned district. If this is correct, please reduce the subdivision to the extents of the NMD district, or demonstrate that the R -4 district requirements are being met for that section of the plat. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The lots that extend beyond the NMD district are still included in the lot count and density calculations; please revise. Rev2: Comment addressed. 8. [14- 302(B)7] Reservoir watershed. Revise the note regarding the watershed to also read, `this property is not located within a water supply protection area'. Rev1: Comment addressed. 9. [14- 302(B)8] Yards. Please show both the minimum and maximum front setbacks, if applicable, on the layout sheet. The front and side setbacks for Block 9 (lots 102 -124) are incorrectly shown at 8' and 3'. These lots should be 60' in width or greater and have a front setback of 16' and a side setback of 5'. Please also correct the side setback to 5' in the information presented on the cover sheet. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Maximum front setbacks are not shown. The front setbacks on lots #48 -50 appear to be inaccurate. Carriage house setback information should be provided on the Cover Sheet. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Maximum front setbacks are not shown on lots 146 -148. Lots 60' and greater in width (lots 180 -195) have a 16' build to line; please remove the line and label that refer to the 8' min. standard that applies in the other blocks. Carriage house setback information is still not provided; all of Table 9 from the Code of Development should be provided on the Cover Sheet. 10. [14 -306] Private streets information. Clarify if authorization for any private streets is being requested. If authorization for one or more private streets is requested and has not been previously approved as provided by section 14 -234, the subdivider shall submit with each preliminary plat or, if none, with each final plat, the information required to support authorization under the applicable requirements of sections 14 -232, 14 -233 and 14- 234(A). Rev1: Comment addressed. No private streets are proposed. 11. [Comment] Please clarify whether or not you are seeking approval of the `future townhouse lots' with this application. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. For clarification, the number of townhouse lots is approvable, but no other review of the townhouse lots is included. Rev2: The `future townhouse lots' were removed from this plat; this comment is no longer applicable. 12. [14 -400 & Belvedere Code of Development] Lots 66 -69 cannot front on open space, they must have the required road frontage. Please revise the layout of these lots or apply for a variation. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, it appears parking is only proposed on one side of Road R, which is inconsistent with similar streets in the development; zoning will determine if this deviation from the Code of Development is variable. Rev2: Comment addressed. However, this road (along with many others) may not meet state fire code. Please refer to fire /rescue comments for additional information and contact their staff for further clarification, if necessary. 13. [Code of Development] Please provide information that demonstrates all green space and amenities requirements are being, or have been, satisfied (Belvedere Code of Development pages 9 -14). See attached memo for further information. It appears that the proposed open space /green space differs significantly from the application plan, including the elimination of `linear park k'; all green space and amenities indicated in the Code of Development must be provided, or a variation must be obtained. Rev1: Comment still under review. See #5 above for necessary corrections to the numbers provided. Additional variations and /or revisions may be required. The presentation of green space approved or dedicated in other sections of the development should be cross - referenced to the elements listed on pages 9 -14 of the Code of Development, not simply presented as a total. Any previous deviations that required a variation should list the variation number and approval date. A separate copy of the application plan with the corresponding area marked may be helpful as well. This information can be provided on an exhibit separate from the plat, if desired. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Please refer to comment #5 for additional information. 14. [Code of Development] It appears that the residential unit count allowed in the Code of Development may be exceeded in Blocks 4 & 9. Provide a table that demonstrates the number of residential units (by type) previously approved, currently proposed, and running overall tallies for each block. Please see the attached memo for further information. It also appears that 23 lots are proposed in Block 9, not 22 as indicated on the Cover Sheet; please clarify. Rev1: Comment not addressed. The table provided needs to include the specific number of lots approved with previous plats for each block, not simply the range of lot numbers approved through the rezoning. The table and the density chart include the 4 lots that are located outside of the NMD boundary; please remove these lots from all project information. The density information needs to include the minimum number of carriage houses, not just the maximum; this will also impact the `total unit' number and the density calculations. After revision, please verify that the proposed numbers fall within the ranges requested through the variation that is currently under review. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The variation request to redistribute unit types ( #47) has been withdrawn. It appears that the remainder of Block 5 and portions of Block 7 & 9 are included in this application. If this is the case, please add a note clarifying what is included and add a `remaining' column to the table on the Cover Sheet to track the number of lots /units that will still be available in each block after this plat is approved. The `complete' and `incomplete' references in the `comments' column also need to be corrected. 15. [Code of Development] Proposed lots 2 -7, 30 -37, 105, and 106 -124 do not meet the lot widths indicated in the Code of Development. Please revise the lot layout to provide the required lot widths or apply for a variation. Rev1: Comment not addressed. Lots 24 -26 & 28 -35 in Block 8 fall below the 30' -60' width range given in the code for Blocks 5 -8. Lots 98 -117 in block 9 fall below the 60'+ width given in the code. Zoning is currently reviewing these deviations to determine if they are variable. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Please verify that lot 175 is 30' wide. 16. [Code of Development] The residential densities presented on the plan don't appear to fall within some of the ranges permitted in the Code of Development. Please provide the current and overall residential densities as requested in the attached memo. Rev1: Comment not addressed. A variation has been submitted and is currently under review. Also, see #14 for more information. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. The variation request to redistribute unit types ( #47) has been withdrawn. Please provide the density information in the `total platted /proposed' section of the table on the Cover Sheet and, as indicated in #14 above, clarify the numbers of lots /units that will remain available in each block after this plat is approved. 17. [Code of Development] It appears that sections of Road I, Alleys q & r, and Road D (Code of Development labels) differ from the road standards presented in Table 8 in the Code of Development. Please provide a table that demonstrates that all road standards are being met as requested in the attached memo. Please use the road designations indicated in the Code of Development (instead of starting over with road a, b, etc) for ease of review. If variations have been granted, list them on the cover sheet with the associated information. Rev1: Comment not addressed. Alleys o, q, & r are larger than designated in the Code of Development. Roads H & I are also proposed to be larger than designated in the code. Road D is proposed to be smaller than designated in the code. The design of Belvedere Blvd, from the village green into Phase 2, does not match the section in Phase I and appears to not include on- street parking. Roads R & X propose parking on one -side only, which is inconsistent with similar roads. The conditions of approval for SP2007 -54 required that many of the roads within Phase 2 be 32' face -of -curb to face -of -curb, or whichever standard the County Engineer determines is adequate for on- street parking (not occasional on- street parking as was previously planned for in the Code of Development). Zoning is currently reviewing these deviations to determine if they are variable. Additional revisions will be required. The table that compares the proposed road standards to those approved with the rezoning should include all elements from the original Code table including traffic flow, # of travel lanes, and information regarding on- street parking. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. As previously discussed, many proposed roads may not meet state fire code; please refer to fire /rescue comments for additional information. A new variation ( #48) has also been submitted to change some road sections from the approved Code of Development; please refer to engineering comments, zoning comments and planning comments provided separately for further information regarding the variation. The face -of -curb to face -of -curb dimension labels on Roads H & I don't correspond with what is presented in the proposed Table 8; please correct. There are two different ROW dimensions provided on Road D (Farrow Road), and the proposed section does not match the existing section; please clarify which ROW dimension is accurate and clarify how the transition between the two sections will be accomplished. It also appears that there are differing roads widths on Road R (Dabney Grove) between the existing and the proposed portions. Due to the bold parcel line, it is difficult to see how the transitions will be made; please clarify. Label the ROW width on Road I (Shelton Street). 18. [Code of Development] All elements including the ROW should be dimensioned on the street sections shown on Sheet 6, and should correspond to the Road Standards in Table 8. On- street parallel parking, where permitted, should be 9' wide. Street sections should include the required street trees (a note stating trees are required to be 2.5" caliper should also be added to the cover sheet). Rev1: Comment not addressed. See comment above. Street sections still do not include street trees and no reference to the street trees is included on the cover sheet. Rev2: Comment not fully addressed. Please correct the E /P -E /P number of section 6 to 28' instead of 26' on Sheet 6. The design speed for section 5 is presented as 30 mph, but the Table lists 20 mph; please clarify. The design speed for section 6 is presented as 20 mph, but was previously approved at 30 mph; any changes in design speed should be included in the variation request. Please see engineering comments for additional information. Make sure the sections on Sheet 6 correspond with the proposed changes to Table 8 and the information presented on the layout sheet. 19. [Code of Development] The grading along the front of many of the lots in Block 9 is quite steep; please demonstrate how acceptable driveway grade will be obtained. Rev1: Comment addressed. 20. [Proffer 4.4] Please indicate where the 50' Row for connection to Dunlora Farm will be located. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, the conservation area between the lots in Block 9 and the 50' ROW has not been provided. Zoning will determine if this is variable. Rev2: Comment no longer applicable. The portion of Block 9 that extends to the 50' ROW appears to no longer be included in this application. Please be aware that the conservation area between Block 9 lots and the ROW is not variable and will be required when that portion is platted. L UuG w �1101iyw ,J the lot liuitiuc,o, the Niia_...� ...._....auviI PL uvideu aNNc01 0 w ._ad revision. pe"�• r„�„�„e.,+ °1dressed. 22. [Comment] This is a subdivision application, please remove the reference to 'site plan' from the title of Sheet 3; 'overall layout' or `lot layout' is appropriate. Please contact Ellie Ray at the Division of Current Development by using eray analbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.