HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300136 Review Comments Final Plat 2013-10-10=LU
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Kirk Hughes
From: Christopher P. Perez- Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: October 10, 2013
Subject: SUB2013000136 Lochlyn Hill — Final Subdivision Plat for Phase 1
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approval of the plat referred 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. [Comment] The final plat which was submitted attempts to subdivide Phase IA and
Phase IB on the same final plat; however, this is not permissible at this time because Phase
IB was not depicted/reviewed on the preliminary subdivision plat for Phase IA which was
approved on 5- 17 -13, rather on the plat it was depicted as "future development."
Subsequently Phase IB has not went to SRC as a Subdivision Plat on its own accord, rather
it only went to SRC as an Initial Site Plan for the townhomes. It is advisable that the
applicant removes Phase IB from this final subdivision plat and move forward with the
review /approval of the Phase IA.
Once the road plan and the final plat for Phase IA are approved then submit a Final Site
Plan for Phase IB and then a Preliminary Plat or a Final Plat Prior to and without a
preliminary (to SRC) for Phase IB.
Also another reason why it is not permissible to include both phases on one plat is because
Phase IB utilized the standard level cluster development provision of the ordinance in R4
zoning district based on providing a minimum of 25% open space. Thus what is depicted as
Common Area Open Space 1 and 3 on this plat is the area which qualified Phase IB of the
development to have townhome units at a min lot size below the standard 10,890SF min lot
size. This was all contingent on Phase IB being its own lot to be developed at a future date.
Revise appropriately. If you have any questions please give me a call, for your convenience
below I am providing a history of the submittals for this project.
History of submittals:
* SUB201300028_Phase IA (Lots 1 -21) — Preliminary subdivision plat (went to SRC)
approved w/ conditions on 5- 17 -13.
* SDP201300026_Phase IB (Townhomes) — Initial site plan (went to SRC) approved w/
conditions on July 29, 2013.
* SUB201300092_Road Plans (for both Phase IA and IB) - currently under review.
* SUB201300136 —Final Plat (for both Phase IA and IB) — this plat, currently under review.
2. [Comment] Phase IB of this development straddles County and City boarders; as such
the City as well as the County will be required to sign the final subdivision plat for Phase
IB of the development including road plan review and bonding of the road.
[14- 302(A4) and (A5), 14 -305, 14 -311] Water protection plans are required to be
approved prior to final plat approval. Please coordinate this effort with Engineering,
notably it appears the Stormwater Management Facility for this site is offsite and within
the City of Charlottesville, thus I believe the City will be required to approve that aspect
of the plan. Will this issue require offsite Access and Maintenance Easement for the
SWM pond? If so, they will be required prior to approval of the final plat. Please address
this issue.
4. [Comment] On the approved preliminary plat for Phase IA_ Lot 19 and Lot 20 were
approved as attached single family lots; however, on the final plat they are depicted as
separate detached single family lots. Please address this inconsistency.
Also, on the approved preliminary plat for Phase IA, Lot 20 was designated/approved to as
an affordable unit which was provided to meet the phases' density requirements. Please
address the inconstancy with the approved preliminary plat. Revise appropriately to include
a note on sheet 1 which lists the Lot 20 as an affordable unit.
5.[14-302B(8), 14- 302A(9) and 4.11.3] Side yard setbacks for R4 zoning are 15% however,
if the applicant aims to reduce the setback to 10' as depicted on the plat the applicant will
need approval from the Fire Official that the development has adequate fire flows for
such a reduction. Prior to final subdivision plat approval please coordinate this effort with
the Fire and Rescue Dept to assure compliance with Section 4.11.3 (Al). Notably,
Robbie Gilmer and Alex Morrison have requested a fire flow test for Lochlyn Hills.
Results are pending. In the case of a side yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire
official may require a guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the
provisions of this section, and this guarantee may include, but not be limited to,
appropriate deed restrictions, disclosure, and other such instruments, which shall be of a
substance and be in a form approved by the fire official and the county attorney, and
shall be recorded in the records of the circuit court of the county; "
Also, if approved for the reduction revise the side yard setback note on sheet 1 to state:
"Minimum side yard setbacks for this development are 10' per Section 4.11.3 ".
6. [Condition of Approval for Preliminary Plat] As proposed the realignment of Pen
Park Lane will require alterations in existing access for TMP 61A -19, 20, 21, 22, and
23A. As such this may require access easements to be provided to those owners across
Lochlyn Hills property OR boundary line adjustments to transfer the excess land to those
owners. Depending on the solution to the above this may also require offsite construction
easements to construct the modified driveways on the above properties. Per the
applicant, they are working with VDOT and individual lot owners on this issue and the
final plat will reflect additional r/w or transfer of the property to the lot owners. Prior
to Final Plat approval this issue shall be resolved and approved by VDOT and the
County.
2
As proposed it does not appear that the above mentioned issue has been addressed, rather
there is a portion of land being dedicated as "Common Area Open Space 2" which
appears to create an island in the middle of Pen Park Lane. Please clarify.
7.[14-302(A)9 and 4.6.41 The rear setbacks for Lots 19 and 21 should be revised to
account for the approved L- turnaround of the 20' Private Alley Easement. The rear
setback shall be measured from the easement. The approved preliminary subdivision plat
for Phase IA (SUB201300028) did not contain a turn around on these lots, thus it was not
relevant on that plat. Only during the review and approval of the Initial Site Plan for
Phase IB did this item come into play. This will need to be corrected on the final
subdivision plat prior to approval.
Also, the required/approved L- turnaround will affect the rear setback for "Parcel A ". The
rear setback shall be measured from the easement. Revise appropriately.
8.[14-303(G)] Ownership of Common Area. On the final plat provide the intended
ownership for all the easements, specifically for the Pocket Park, 20' shared driveway
easements, 20' Private Alley Access Easement, 30' Private Alley Easement (Points B to
C), and 30' Emergency Fire Access Easement and pedestrian and bike connection (Points
A to B).
9. [Comment] The preliminary plat denotes the Pocket Park as being maintained by the
HOA; however, the final plat labels it as "Public" and is not include on Sheet 1 under
General Notes #6 along with the other items to be maintained by the HOA. On the plat
clarify who shall maintain this space. Is it to be maintained by the HOA, individual
property owners of Lots 7 -9 or some other parry? Please clarify.
Also, staff recommends that a note be added to sheet 1 of the plat to denote the Pocket
Park Access Easement traverses Lots 7 -9.
10. [4.6.3(a)] The side yard setbacks abutting the "20' shared driveway easements " are not
accurately shown. Pursuant to Section 4.6.3(a) `Ifa shared driveway is concurrent with
the shared lot line of the lots served by the shared driveway, each primary structure also
shall he located at least six (6) feet from the edge of the shared driveway easement. "
Thus on the plat there should be an additional 6' side yard setback from each side of the
easement per Section 4.6.3(a). If the shared easements are to remain as depicted this will
need to be corrected prior to final subdivision plat approval.
11. [14 -303E] Shared Driveway Easements. The easement holder(s) of the shared driveway
easements shall be identified on the plat. Also, a note shall be added to the plat stating
that maintenance shall be by the owners of the lots affected by the shared driveway
easement, not by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the county. Revise.
12. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. Prior to Final Plat
approval, an instrument evidencing maintenance of the Pocket Park, Common Area Open
Space, 20' shared driveway easements, 20' Private Alley Access Easement, 30' Private
Alley Easement (Points B to C), and 30' Emergency Fire Access Easement and
pedestrian and bike connection (Points A to B) will need to be submitted for County
review and approval. The County Attorney will be required to review/ approve the
maintenance documents prior to final plat approval. Submit the draft documents to
Planning staff for cursory review and then we'll forward them to the County Attorney for
review/ approval.
13. [14 -435] Road plans must be approved and the roads must be built or bonded prior to the
signing of the final plat.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1) No objection*
*Notably, Robbie Gilmer and Alex Morrison have requested a fire flow test for Lochlyn Hills to
qualify the side yard reduction. Results are pending.
E911 - Andrew Slack
Approved
Engineering — Max Greene
1) Plat does not appear to match the initial site plans alley access and requires a turn around that
matches the site plan.
2) Road plans will need to be approved and bonded prior to final plat approval.
3) Water protection plans need to be approved prior to final plat approval.
4) Common Open Space # 2 appears to be blocking existing lot access or is creating an island in
the middle of the existing road. Please clarify road alignment.
5) Private drainage easements do not appear to match Initial site and subdivision plans.
6) Emergency Fire Access Easement is not labeled on plat.
VDOT — Troy Austin
1) The road and utility plans for this project are currently in the review process. There are a few
sanitary sewer and storm sewer alignment changes that we are working with the engineer on
which could impact the easements shown on the final plat. As such, the road plans need to be
approved before we can recommend approval on the final plat.
ACSA — Alex Morrison
1) The construction documents related to the above referenced plat are currently under review by
ACSA staff. The ACSA will comment on the plat once construction approval is granted.
Building Inspections - Jay Schlothauer
No objection
RWSA - Victoria Fort
Comments pending
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext.
3443 for further information.
4