Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201200038 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2012-08-23_ p County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Memorandum To: Scott Collins (scott @collins - engineering.com) From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: April 12, 2011 Rev1: August 23, 2012 Subject: SUB 2012 -00038 Westlake Hills - Preliminary Fax 434 - 972 -4126 The County of Albemarle Planning Division 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.] [14- 302(A)4] Private easements. Provide and label the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed private easements. Existing easements must include the deed book, page number, and owner of record. A letter of intent for any off -site easements is also required. It appears that grading is proposed off - site, which will require an easement. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that proposed construction extends beyond the noted 20' easement on the parcel to the west and no easement is noted on the parcel to the north; please clarify. There is also a proposed improvement related to the stream crossing or SWM facility on Lot #17, please show an easement as indicated for other such improvements. 2. [14- 302(A)5] Public easements. Provide and label the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed public easements, including the pond, drainage and access easement on TMP 56 -53 (DB4024, PG489). Existing easements must include the deed book, page number, and owner of record. The existing sanitary sewer easements shown should be labeled with the deed book and page number. Rev1: Comment addressed. 3. [14- 302(A)8] Proposed lots. Provide dimensions for all boundary lines of each lot, including frontage on any proposed street; a few dimensions are missing. Rev1: Comment not addressed. Dimensions are still missing on lots 72 - 77. Additionally, if no bonus factors are proposed, the minimum lot size is 30,000SF and the minimum lot frontage is 100'. No lots shown currently meet this standard. Bonus factors can be used to qualify for the smaller "bonus" level lot size even if no density increase is requested. It looks like street trees are still proposed, which could be used to qualify for the smaller lot standard if properly documented on the cover and shown on all street sections. Please clarify if street trees are in fact proposed and provide the proper documentation, or revise all lots to meet the above -noted standard. Regardless of which lot standard is used, Lot #3 does meet the frontage requirement and must be revised. 4. [14- 302(A)9] Building sites on proposed lots. The minimum building site diagram provided should include the minimum square footage for the building site based on the dimensions of a typical footprint plus the required setbacks. The diagram must also include a statement certifying that each lot has a building site that contains at least that specific square footage. Include a reference to the requested critical slope waiver on the Cover Sheet as well. Engineering comments on the critical slope waiver request indicate that modifications to the lot layout will be necessary before staff can recommend approval of the waiver. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. There are two notes regarding building sites on the cover sheet: one incorrectly references development rights (which don't exist on R -1 zoned parcels), and the other references a section of County Code that doesn't exist. Please correct both notes to indicate the actual minimum building site provided and Section 4.2.1. Engineering has analyzed the critical slope waiver request and recommended a conditional approval that requires an overlot grading plan for all lots with existing or proposed critical slope disturbances. Engineering comments will be forwarded. Planning would like a response from the applicant regarding this condition and an opportunity to review any further layout revisions before we make an official recommendation on the waiver request. 5. [14- 302(A)11] Instrument creating property proposed for subdivision. The most recent instrument for each parcel must also be provided. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for the deed copies, however, the deed book and page number for each parcel must be provided on the plat. 6. [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. The total is provided on the Cover Sheet, but the areas must also be shown and labeled on the layout sheets. A tabulation of areas should be provided on the Cover Sheet as well. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The separate acreages provided for each open space area do not add up to the total provided on the Cover Sheet, please verify and correct. This miscalculation impacts the 'areas' tabulation provided in the notes as well, and should also be revised accordingly. Additionally, it is recommended that access be provided for lots that do not abut the open space by adding an access easement at the end of each cul -de -sac. 7. [14- 302(6)3] Public areas, facilities or uses. 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. The Crozet Master Plan shows greenway /trail areas and an area for a potential park. Please see Parks Department comments for additional information. Rev1: Comment partially addressed, however, additional coordination with Parks is recommended before the Final Plat is approved. Parks comments will be forwarded when received. Planning comments from the initial submittal also indicated a desire to have land dedicated, or reserved for dedication, for the 'Eastern Park' as shown in the comprehensive plan. If the applicant is willing to dedicate or reserve land for this future park, this should also be coordinated with Parks. 8. [13.4.1] cnvlronrnental stanuarus. The prat provides the oounaanes aria acreages or air wooded areas being maintained to meet the requirement for the requested bonus density. However, the table on the cover sheet indicating each area and the sum appears to be missing some areas shown on the layout sheets. In order to qualify for this bonus, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 shall be required. Rev1: This comment is no longer applicable as the bonus density increase has been removed from the application. However, as indicated in comment #3, at least one bonus factor will be required to use the 'bonus' level lot size. 9. [13.4.1] Environmental standards. For your reference, street trees are required to be shown on the road plans for this development to meet the requirement for bonus density. Rev1: Comment may still apply for future road plans. See comment #3. Street trees or one of the other bonus factors will be required if the smaller lot size and frontage standard is being requested. 10. [2.2.3] Minimum open space required. A minimum of 25% open space is required for cluster development. It appears this standard has been met, but not documented properly; see #6 for more information. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #6. 11. [14- 302(6)6] Tax map and parcel number. The tax map and parcel numbers provided in the Cover Sheet are incorrect; please revise. Rev1: Comment addressed. 12. [14- 302(B)8 & 4.6.1(c)] Yards. Several of the setback lines demonstrated on the layout plan are incorrect. Revise the setback /yard lines shown to establish the depth of all front and rear yards to where the minimum lot width is achievable. Lots 11, 13, 107, 108, & 109 appear not to meet this standard on the front setback. Lots 72, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 124, & 137 appear not to meet this standard on the rear setback. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. . Lots 12, 14, 35, 36, 37, 53, 54, 55, 56, 76, 91, and 115 still do not appear to meet this standard on the front setback. Lot 10 does not appear to meet this standard on the rear setback. Please verify and accurately show all setback and yard lines where the minimum lot width is achieved. 13. [14- 302(B)10 & 17- 317(B)] Stream buffer. The stream buffer indicated on the plat is incorrect. The Water Protection Ordinance reads as follows, `If the development is located within a water supply protection area or other rural land, stream buffers shall be retained if present and established where they do not exist on any lands subject to this article containing perennial or intermittent streams, nontidal wetlands contiguous to these streams, and flood plains. The stream buffer shall extend to whichever of the following is wider: (i) one hundred (100) feet on each side of perennial or intermittent streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the nontidal wetlands, or the top of the stream bank if no wetlands exist; or (ii) the limits of the flood plain. The stream buffer shall be no less than two hundred (200) horizontal feet wide from the flood plain of any public water supply impoundment. " Revise the stream buffer accordingly. Rev1: Comment addressed. 14. [14- 302(A)7] Existing and departing lot lines. The existing boundary line is labeled as proposed boundary in at least one area, please revise. 15. [Comment] The comprehensive plan calls for a network of interconnected streets to serve this area. Therefore, it is recommended that some of the proposed cul -de -sacs be revised to show connections. This is not a requirement, but might make for a more integrated and accessible community. Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eray(LDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for further information.