HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400126 Approval - County Preliminary Plat 2014-09-17ALg����
� �'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
September 17, 2014
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SUB201400126 Belvedere Phase 11B — Preliminary Subdivision Plat
Mr. Collins:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced
subdivision plat.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final subdivision plat for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date
of this letter as provided in 14 -226 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the County Code, and thereafter
diligently pursues approval of the final subdivision plat.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit may be issued after the following approvals are received:
1. Approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code.
3. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. Approval of a mitigation plan for the disturbance of Water Protection Ordinance buffers.
5. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist.
The final subdivision plat will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following
items are received:
1. A final subdivision plat that satisfies all of the requirements of 14 -226 of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. A fee of $1,230.
Please submit eight (8) copies of the subdivision plat to the Community Development Department. The
assigned Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies. Once you receive the
first set of comments on the final subdivision plat, please work with each reviewer individually to
satisfy their requirements.
The final subdivision plat will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final subdivision plat for
signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
Planning Division Approval of (4 copies):
1. A plat meeting all the requirements for final subdivision plats per the subdivision ordinance.
[Code of Development(COD)] The proposed Block 8 layout differs significantly from the
application plan including the road and lot layout, changes to the approved Green Space and
Amenities, the addition of Fowler Street and Bartlett Avenue, lot widths below the approved
30', reconfiguration of the proffered 100' ROW dedication area, and the addition of
improvements and a SWM facility within the reserved ROW dedication area; a variation (or
amended rezoning —see below) request must be submitted and approved for these changes.
Any revisions to applicable tables, descriptions, etc in the Code of Development must be
included in the variation request. It should be noted that Zoning determined that the changes
proposed on the previous submittal (in 2011, very similar to the current proposal) were
significant enough that they were not eligible for a variation and that an amendment to the
rezoning would be required. Other approaches to revising Block 8 might be eligible for a
variation; a meeting will likely be required with Planning and Zoning to determine if a variation
or rezoning amendment is required and if either scenario is likely to be supported.
3. [COD] This proposal exceeds the maximum approvable number of lots in Block 7; this plat
brings the total number of lots to 36, but the COD only allows 34. A variation request must be
submitted and approved for this change.
4. [14- 302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Clearly label streets as either existing or proposed.
Provide the widths of all existing streets.
5. [14- 302(A)4 &5] Private & public easements. Provide the location and dimensions of all existing
and proposed private and public easements. Existing easements should be labeled with the
appropriate DB and PG reference. Proposed easements should be labeled with the intended
holder.
6. [14- 302(A)4 & COD] Private easements. When a side setback of less than 4'11" is used, a 6'
maintenance easement shall be recorded on all properties adjacent to the side setback of less
than 4'11 ".
7. [14- 302(A)12] Topography. GIS indicates the presence of small areas of 'managed steep slopes'
on the property, revise Note 3 on sheet 2 to reflect this information and show the areas on the
plat.
8. [14- 302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved /green space and amenities (Table
4). The information provided as 'Approved with Rezoning' is outdated and does not reflect
approved variations that changed Table 4; update this section. Additionally, the portion labeled
as 'Proposed with Phase II' should be split between Phase IIA and IIB. Include all areas provided
in each phase. The sum of the two phases should match or be more than what was approved in
Table 4 as updated through all variations. Additionally, the total Open Space number provided
in the Notes section does not match the sum of the numbers listed above it.
9. [14- 302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved /green space and amenities (Table
4). During the previous submittal, zoning determined that conservation area is not variable.
The conservation area shown on the Application Plan in Block 9 next to the road connection to
the adjacent property is required.
10. [14- 302(B)1] General information. Provide a north point on Sheet 2.
11. [14- 302(8)5] Zoning classification. The Zoning note incorrectly lists the applicable ZMA as
ZMA07 -04; it should be ZMA2004 -07. The variation dates should also be updated to reflect
those mostly recently approved.
12. [14- 302(8)5] Zoning classification. A portion of this property is Zoned R -4; clearly label all R -4
areas and include R -4 in the Zoning note.
13. [14- 302(8)7] Reservoir watershed. Revise the note regarding the watershed to indicate this
property is within the South Fork Rivanna (below reservoir) watershed.
14. [14- 302(8)8 and COD] Yards. Label the side setbacks on lots in Block 9 as these are different
than what is required in other blocks.
15. [14 -306] Private streets information. Label all streets and alleys as either public or private. 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 the
information required to support authorization under the applicable requirements of sections 14-
232, 14 -233 and 14- 234(A).
16. [Comment] The 'future townhouse lots' shown on this application cannot be reviewed or
approved until a Site Plan is submitted; remove the lot lines, lot numbers, and reference to
number of future lots and instead label as 'future townhouses'.
17. [Comment] The 'future lots' outside of the NMD area shown on this application cannot be
reviewed or approved as part of this application; remove the lot lines, lot numbers, and
reference to number of future lots and instead label as 'future development'. Remove all
references in the notes to 'future lots'.
18. [COD] As noted above, it appears that the proposed open space /green space differs
significantly from the application plan, including the elimination of 'Park H' and 'Linear Park K';
all green space and amenities approved in the Code of Development must be provided, or a
variation must be obtained.
19. [COD] Some of the information provided in Tables 1 & 2 is incorrect and /or needs further
clarification. First, information provided under 'Actual to Date' appears to include DB and PG
information for lots in Phase IIA (7 lots in Block 5 and 15 lots in Block 9) that have not yet been
recorded, while the lots in Block 7 from Phase IIA are labeled 'Belvedere Phase IIA'.
Differentiate actual recorded lots from approved but not recorded lots in each block.
Additionally, label the section of this Table that references the current proposal as "Belvedere
Phase IIB Proposed'.
20. [COD] Clarify the carriage house numbers provided for Block 7. The Tables show that there are
20 -29 'actual to date' and 0 -12 'proposed'. This plat only includes 7 lots in Block 7, so it seems
12 carriage houses would be an impossibility. Additionally, the 'total platted /proposed' number
is provided as 0 -12 and the 'total remaining' as 20 -20; these numbers are incorrect. It appears
the proper numbers should be 0 -7 for 'proposed' and 20 -32 for 'total platted /proposed' (as the
maximum approvable number is 32), and 0 -12 for'total remaining'. Verify and revise these
numbers to present accurate information.
21. [COD] Clarify the carriage house numbers provided for Block 8. The Tables show that there are
'20 -26' proposed. Again, this plat only includes 22 lots in Block 8, so it seems 26 carriage houses
would not be possible. Revise these numbers to present accurate information. The
corresponding total carriage house numbers provided in the notes section should also be
revised.
22. [Comment] Please use the road and alley designations indicated in the Code of Development in
addition to street names for ease of review.
23. [COD] It appears that the Section used for Belvedere Blvd does not match that provided in the
COD for portions of Belvedere Blvd that have a median. The section provided on this proposal
does not allow for on- street parking, while all sections including a median listed in the COD do.
Additionally, SP2007 -54 was approved with conditions for on- street parking to support the SOCA
facility proposed with that application. One of the conditions was to provide street widths to
accommodate on- street parking as approved by Engineering. Work with Engineering,
Fire /rescue, and VDOT to establish approvable road widths. Any differences from the COD must
be approved through a variation.
24. [COD] The sections for Streets H & I (Isetta and Dukes) may need to be revised to accommodate
on- street parking with a width that's approvable to all agencies. SP2007 -54 was approved with
conditions for on- street parking to support the SOCA facility proposed with that application on
portions of these streets. One of the conditions was to provide street widths to accommodate
on- street parking as approved by Engineering. Work with Engineering, Fire /rescue, and VDOT to
establish approvable road widths. Any differences from the COD must be approved through a
variation.
25. [COD] The alleys in Block 8 were designated as one -way with 12' minimum paved width in the
COD. This application proposes 2 -way alleys with 14' widths; include the proposed changes to
these alleys in the variation request for Block 8.
26. [COD] Fowler Street and Bartlett Avenue were not included in the approved application plan or
code of development; a variation will be required to add these roads. As above, work with
Engineering, Fire /rescue and VDOT to establish approvable road design.
27. [COD] A note stating trees are required to be 2.5" caliper should be added to the cover sheet.
28. [Proffer 3.1] 25% open space proffer. The 'Platted' columns in Table 4 indicate that many areas
of open space from Blocks previously developed have not been provided; make sure Table 4 is
completely up to date and account for any areas not provided.
29. [Proffer 5.1] Overlot grading plan proffer. The overlot grading plan proffer must be satisfied for
this phase prior to Final Plat approval.
Please contact Ellie Ray at 296 -5832 if you have questions or require additional information.
Engineering Division Approval of (1 copy of site plan: WPO plan number stated in application):
1. Proposal does not appear to match rezoning application plan.
2. parking requirements for SP200700054 SOCA All Weather Synthetic Field does not appear to be
addressed per Executive Summary.
3. The existing entrance area for Belvedere Boulevard may need to be widened.
4. North Arrow is missing from existing conditions page.
5. Show Critical slopes on the initial subdivision plat.
6. Proposed Stormwater Management Facility in 100' reservation may need to be moved if North
Free State Road Extension is still in the County Comprehensive Plan.
7. Bartlett Avenue May need to be moved out of the 100' Reservation if North Free State Road
Extension is still in the County Comprehensive Plan.
8. The property line on lots 48,49 & 50 appears to be missing behind the sidewalk.
9. Sight easements will be required for all lines of sight not within the proposed right of way.
10. Roads will be built and accepted into the State System or Bonded for construction prior to final
plat approval.
11. VSMP plans will be approved prior to final plat approval.
12. Actual existing topography will be required for the VSMP plans.
13. Additional drainage system and inlets may be required prior to final plat approval.
Please contact Max Greene at 296 -5832 if you have questions or require additional information.
ACSA approval to include (1 copy to County, 3 copies to ACSA):
The applicant should submit 3 sets of final plans (utility plans) along with water /sewer data sheets to the
ACSA, Attn: Jeremy Lynn, P.E., for full construction review. The ACSA has determined certain items that
will be evaluated during the construction review that the applicant should be aware of:
1. The ACSA will be unable to recommend approval of the final SUB and SDP until all outstanding
construction inspection invoices with the ACSA are paid in full.
2. The proposed FHA near Lot 1 is in conflict with the existing sewer.
3. The existing watermain stub -out along Belvedere Drive is a 12 ", not an 8 ". Update the stub -out
size and existing offsite waterline sizes accordingly.
Please contact Alex Morrison at 977 -4511 ext 116 if you have questions or require additional
information.
Fire & Rescue approval to include (1 copy):
1. Belvedere Boulevard shall be 20 ft FC /FC both directions.
2. Streets 20 ft FC /FC to 29 ft FC /FC shall have both sides marked "No Parking Fire Lane" so noted
on page 6
3. Streets 29 ft FC /FC to 36 ft FC /FC shall have one side marked "No Parking Fire Lane" so noted on
page 6
4. When marking the streets with paint for No Parking the color of red needs to be VDOT approved
Red.
5. Any alleyways that will have Carriage Houses on them shall have an approved 20 Ft Access way.
Please contact Robbie Gilmer at 296 -5833 if you have questions or require additional information.
VDOT approval to include (1 copy):
1. The private versus public roads should be clearly labeled on the preliminary plat.
2. Phillips Alley is labeled at two separate locations on the preliminary plat.
3. The available sight distance for Belvedere Boulevard and Fowler Street should be shown on the
preliminary plat.
4. The proposed ADT for Belvedere Boulevard should be added to the preliminary plat.
5. The typical sections for Farrow Drive and Colbert Street indicate parking on one side of the road
only. The side that will be available for parking should be identified.
6. The typical section for Belvedere Boulevard indicates 12' travel lanes and 4' bike lanes. Will this
be acceptable to Emergency Services in lieu of their 20' clear travel path requirement?
7. The proposed alignment of the roads shown on the preliminary plat have previously been
reviewed and commented on by Joel DeNunzio in an e-mail dated April 6, 2012. These
comments, which do not appear to have been addressed are summarized below:
a. The section of road that will be the future connector road needs to be within the
reserved 100 foot right of way as shown with the Belvedere Rezoning Plan. The
Stormwater Management Facility should not be located within this reserved right of
way.
The future road should be designed to allow for construction by the County for the
future construction to have minimum impacts on the subdivision and minimum
reconstruction of the collector road. The County should only expect to reconstruct a
small portion of the future collector road for the tie in's.
The future collector road should not have multiple reverse curves throught this section
to go around a stormwater management facility. This alignment will require this section
of road to be constructed with superelevation and will complicate the future
construction.
Road G and Y (Colbert Street and Fowler Street respectively) need to have adequate
horizontal curves. This item appears to have been discussed with the applicant in a
meeting at the County office in 2012. This plan shows t- intersections that may not be
constructed. The plan needs to meet the VDOT standards assuming the future road is
not constructed.
Access points to the section of the future road need to be in accordance with the VDOT
Access Management Regulations for an Urban Collector Road with a minimum design
speed of 35 mph. I would recommend that the design speed be set at 40 mph.
I am attaching a sketch of what I would consider to be an acceptable design according to
a meeting with the applicant in 2012. A design similar to the attached will minimize
future demolition and reconstruction and meet the minimum requirements in the
interim. The horizontal curves were set at 20 mph and we think this will be acceptable
assuming the roads prior to the future collector have relatively low volumes. The curves
will need to have adequate approach warning as shown in the VDOT Road Design
Manual but minimizing the radius of curvature will also minimize the impact to the
developable lots. The location of the collector road in the sketch will of course need to
be adjusted to accommodate the necessary grading, but for the development's benefit, I
would recommend placing as far back on the reserved right -of -way as possible.
Please contact Troy Austin at 422 -9782 if you have questions or require additional information.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to
contact me at Extension 3432, eray @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
0, 26t
Ellie C. Ray, PLA
Senior Planner