HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500006 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2015-03-17COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 17, 2015
Justin Shimp
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP - 201500006 Sunset Overlook Site Plan- Initial
Dear Sir:
Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 2 -2 -15) against
applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below:
1. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It
appears that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any
subdivision related comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval.
2. [32.5.2(d), 39.7.4(b)(h)] Slopes less than 25% based on new topographic information. Any use or
structure allowed by right or by special use permit in the underlying district, provided that the owner
submits new topographic information that is based on more accurate or better technical data -
demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the county engineer, that the slopes are less than twenty -five (25)
percent. As depicted on sheet C2 the site plan application relies on new topographic information
provided by Louisa Aerial Surveys to distinguish between slopes depicted in the County approved
Steep Slopes Overlay District and the new topography which distinguishes between slopes less than
25% and slopes of 25% or greater. Prior to approval of the final site plan allowing disturbance of these
features as provided in the design standards manual, the County Engineer must sign off on this
topographic information. See Engineering's comments on this item.
[18- 15.5,18 -15.3, 18 -4.7, 32.5.2(n)] Cluster Development. On the plan list the amount of Open Space
area that is outside of the preserved slopes and outside of Stormwater Management Areas. Assure that
not more than eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space (25% of the site) shall consist
of the following: (i) land located within the one - hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to
occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United
States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County,
Virginia, August, 1985; (iii) critical or preserved slopes; and (iv) land devoted to stormwater
management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or feature is incorporated into
a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to constitute a desirable open space
amenity.
Please note that regardless of whether Engineering accepts the new topographic information or
not, the areas ofpreserved slopes approved in the County's steep slope ordinance does not change.
4. [18-15.5,18-15.3,18- 4.7] Cluster Development. Label all Open Space on the plan and provide the
square footages of each open space area individually as well as combined. Also, on the plan list-who
shall own and maintain the open space. Maintenance agreement approved by the County Attorney's
office shall be required to maintain the open space areas prior to final subdivision plat approval.
5. [32.51(c), 18 -15.3, 4.11.31 Setbacks. The side yard setbacks for R -4 zoning are 15 foot; however, the
plan utilizes 10 foot. The 10 foot setback is permitted provided the provisions of Section 4.11.3 are
met. Prior to final site plan/fmal subdivision plat approval the Fire Flow test shall be requested and
conducted and the Fire Official shall approve the reductions.
Also, revise the Setback note on sheet 1 to provide the following:
"Setbacks:
Front 25 feet
Rear 20 feet
Side 10 feet per requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 4.11.3
6. [32.5.2.(a)] Vicinity Map. The property lines in the vicinity map are not accurate and do not represent
the true lot shape and which roads the site fronts on. Currently the lot is depicted as a shape resembling
a home plate in the game of baseball that does not front Country Green Rd; however, the lot does front
Country Green Road and does not match the general shape depicted in the vicinity map. Revise
appropriately.
7. [32.5.1(c)] On Sheet 1, under Parcel Summary, a 338 SF portion of TMP 76 -52N is listed as being part of
the development. The current site plan does not clearly depict where the 33 8 SF is coming from. It appears
that it's coming from the back right corner of the lot and being added to Lot 16. For this to take place a
Boundary Line Adjustment plat will need to be applied for /reviewed /approved /recorded prior to final site
plan approval.
8. [32.5.1(c)] On sheet 3, the 280' sight distance line /easement is depicted over TMP 76 -52N, 52E, and 52D.
Also, .on TMP 76 -52N there is grading taking place, this will require a temporary grading easement. All
offsite easements shall be applied for /reviewed /approved /recorded prior to final site plan approval.
[32.5.1(c),-14 -404] On Sheet 1, under Parcel- Summary; a 34,362 SF portion of TMP 76 -52 is -
excluded from the lot calculations. On sheet 2 this area is listed as being excluded from the site plan
and it appears to have a dashed line which looks a lot like a proposed property line. Is the intent of
excluding this acreage from the site plan to subdivide it? How is this lot or lots being served /accessed?
In order to divide this portion off it would need to be served by a private or public street serving the
lot /lots which would have to be created at the time of the subdivision. Otherwise a 14 -404 exception
"a process formerly coined as a 404 waiver" would need to be applied for and approved with the
subdivision plat. Please advice. OR is this section merely to be phased, if so, show the phase line and
provide proposed timing on the plan.
10. [32.5.1(c)] On sheet C2, the existing gravel driveway for TMP 76 -52N is being revised with the
proposal to omit an existing entrance which appears to be located on TMP 76 -52. VDOT will need to
sign off/ approve the remaining entrance on their property to assure that it meets VDOT entrance
standards.
11. [Comment] The strip of land between TMP 76 -52C and 76 -52D which runs behind Lots 27 and 28
contains a gravel driveway which the adjoining land owners utilize for access to their homes and their
garages. How will the installation of sanitary sewer in this area impact their current access point to
their homes and garages? Has the developer contacted the property owners about the proposed
nnpacts?
12. [32.5.2(b)] On sheet 1, under Proposed Use, the site is listed as 32 new lots; however, on the same . .
page under Gross Residential Density and under Trip Generation 29 units are proposed. The number
of proposed units should be consistent throughout the plan. Revise appropriately.
13. [32.5.2(a)] On sheet 1, the names of the owner are listed as Richard Barrick and James Deinlein;
however, County Real- estate Records list FORGE FARM LLC as the owner. Revise if appropriate.
14. [32.5.2(a)] General information. The road which all 3 new streets access is labeled as "Old Lynchburg
Road "; however, County records label this road as "Sunset Avenue Extended ". Revise appropriately.
15. [Comment] On sheet 1 assure that the site plan number is included: SDP20150006.
16. [32.5.2(a)] Being this site is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC), approval from the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) is required prior to final site plan approval. See ARB comments from Margaret
below. Also, assure the Zoning of the property lists Entrance Corridor (EC).
17. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(n)] Dimensions. On the plan provide the dimensions of the proposed structures.
18. [32.5.2(n)] Depict the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
19. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension the full width of the retaining walls required for construction.
20. [32.5.2(n)] There is an existing paved pedestrian path along Old Lynchburg Road (Rte 63 1) which
runs behind Lots 1— 7. Is this pedestrian path on TMP 76 -52 or is it within the existing public right of
way?
21. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3(c)] Interconnectivity of sidewalks or pedestrian ways. The agent may require that
any sidewalk or other pedestrian way connect to existing sidewalks or pedestrian ways on abutting
parcels. It is recommended that the sidewalk associated with the new public street be extended to the
pedestrian path along Old Lynchburg Road (Rte 631). A preferred point for this connection is along
the side property line of Lot 1.
22. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.31 Sidewalks. Assure that sidewalks are provided along Sunset Avenue Extended for
the duration of the property being developed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] On the plan provide the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and
driveways.
24. [32.5.2(i)] Clearly label the proposed streets as Public Street or Private Street. The private streets are
labeled as "Private Access Easement"; however, they shall be relabeled as "Private Street Easements ".
Revise appropriately.
25. [32.5.2(1)] This plan proposes two private streets. While streets (public or private) are not reviewed or
approved with site plan applications, it should be noted that private street requests must be submitted
when the subdivision application is submitted. This private street request can be reviewed
administratively due to the presence of attached dwellings. A maintenance agreement for the private
street must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the subdivision
application.
26. [32.5.2(i), 4.6.3] All portions of the private streets should be included in the private street right -of-
ways including turnarounds. Setbacks are taken from the edge of the right of way line, rather than the
property lines. Correct the setbacks on the plan as it appears they are currently being taken from the
proposed property lines rather than the right -of -way lines. Revise setbacks for Lots 17- 19,,21 -23, and
26. Revise appropriately.
27. [32.5.2(1)] Street trees shall be required for this development. Prior to final site plan approval a
landscape plan shall be provided.
28. [32.5.2(i)] The required 6' wide planting strips are not consistently provided along all of the proposed
streets; rather, the landscape strip is provided for portions of the road and then it vanishes along cul -de-
sacs. Revise to assure all proposed streets provide the required 6' wide planting strip for the entire
duration of the street. Also, please label and dimension these planting strips appropriately. To request
a variation or exception to this requirementplease make the official request with the subdivision plat
pursuant to Section 14- 422(F) & 14- 203.1.
29. [32.5.2(i)] For the proposed Public Street (street A), sidewalks and planting strips are currently
depicted on individual lots. As such this will require easements to be platted over these improvements
and maintenance agreements must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's
Office with the subdivision application. Also, on the subdivision plat label who shall maintain these
items.
30. [32.5.2(o)] Clearly show any areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to public use
(such as public street right -of -way) and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated or
reserved for public use. Sheet C4 provides a "20' ROW Dedication ", but the extent of this dedication
is not clear nor clearly labeled on the plan. Is it for the entire frontage of the property OR is it merely
for the portion labeled adjacent to Lot 23 and Lot 25. Provide a graphic on the plan which clearly
depicts the extent of the ROW dedication. A plat will be required prior to final site plan approval
which dedicates the ROW.
31. [Comment] VDOT approval of the three proposed entrances to the site shall be required prior to final
site plan approval.
32. [32.5.2(i)] The street names provided for the private streets and or the public street are not approved
names; see E911 comments for additional information.
33. [Comment] What is happening with "SWM A" ? Is ifto be located in open space? Is it to be located
over multiple lots? Currently it is located over multiple lots. If this is to continue it will be required to
be covered by an easement and maintenance agreement. Engineering will need to sign off on this prior
to approval. This shall be finalized prior to fmal subdivision plat/ final site plan approval.
34. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 All of the proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent
residential lots. Provide the required screening.
35. [14 -401] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots for single family detached and attached
residential uses are prohibited. The prohibition of double frontage lots maybe varied or excepted by
the agent as provided in section 14- 203.1. Double frontage lots shall be screened as provided in
section 14 -419. An exception is needed for Lots 1 -7 for double frontage. Please make the request
under 14- 203.1(B) or redesign. The final subdivision plat approval shall be withheld till the item is
either approved or appropriately redesigned. If the request is approved the lots shall be screened as
provided in 14 -419 (as provided in section 18-3 2.7.9.7). The required screening shall be within a
landscape easement that shall be recorded with a maintenance agreement to be approved by the County
Attorney. Also, for these lots assure the correct setbacks are depicted: currently the rear is listed with a
20' setback; however, that is not a rear setback, as it fronts on Old Lynchburg Road. Assure that that
setback is revised to be 25' for a fiont.
36. [14 -106 and 2361 Currently Lots 1 & 2 and Lots 6 & 7 are served by shared driveways.which appear
to be located on lots which sole purpose is for the shared driveways. These lots do not appear
permissible as they cannot be Special lots because they are not containing "private streets ". It is
suggested that the portion of each shared driveway lot be added to the adjacent parcel being created.
As such Lot 1 would expand and lot 2 would expand by consuming the shared driveway lot acreage.
Also, Lot 6 and Lot 7 would expand by consuming the shared driveway lot acreage as well. The shared
driveways would then become Alleys. For this to be pennissible Lot 1 would require an easement over
lot 2 for access and Lot 7 would require an easement over lot 6 for access. Ifyou have questions about
this please contact me.
37. [32.5.1(c),18 -15.3] Assure that the site plan correctly depicts the side setback for Lot 29 and Lot 8, as
currently it is listed as 10' BSL but it measures 25'.
38. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6] On sheet 1 provide the maximum number of dwelling units by type including the
number of bedrooms for multifamily dwellings. Also, on sheet 1 provide the parking calculations for
the uses, to include required parking (to include guest parking spaces) and parking provided. Also, on
the plan depict, label, and dimension all parking spaces. Also, spaces shall be striped or signed
(provide this on the plan). Revise appropriately.
39. [14- 303(T)] Special lots. The subdivision requires special lots be created the SWM lots. As such the
following note shall be placed on the final plat: "Lot `X' is a special lot established solely for (insert
purpose for the special lot as identified in the definition of special lot in section 14- 106)."
40. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4] Any required landscaping proposed on individual lots will require an easement
when the subdivision application is submitted. A maintenance agreement for all required landscaping
(including all street trees and screening) must also be submitted for review and approval by the County
Attorney's Office at that time. The above shall take place prior to final site plan approval.
41. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval:
- If lighting is proposed: Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location,
description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec.
4.17]
- A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9].
Engineering Comments — Justin Deel
See attached comments dated 3 -17 -15
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski
At its March 16, 2015 meeting, the ARB voted unanimously to approve the consent agenda and forward
the following recommendations to the agent for the Site Review Committee:
+ Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18- 30.6.4(2), (3) and (5):
1. In areas where wooded area to remain is used to meet tree requirements along Rt. 631, identify
existing individual large shade and ornamental trees on the plan by size and species to show that
the minimum requirement can be met. If the requirement can't be met, show additional new trees
to be planted to meet the requirement.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines: None.
Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval:
1. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
2. Submit architectural elevations for units 1 -7 for review.
3. Show mechanical equipment on the plan. Show how visibility of the equipment will be eliminated.
4. Include the standard mechanical equipment note on both the site and architectural drawings:
"Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
5. In areas where wooded area to remain is used to meet tree requirements along Rt. 631, identify
existing individual large shade and ornamental trees on the plan by size and species to show that
the minimum requirement can be met. If the requirement can't be met, show additional new trees
to be planted to meet the requirement.
6. Add the standard plant health note to the plan: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
7. Show the existing asphalt path on the plans.
8. Provide a conservation checklist on the plan.
9. Show tree protection fencing on the plan.
Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
1. Provide a conservation checklist on the plan. Show tree protection fencing on the plan.
E911— Andrew Slack
1. The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for approval for
each of the following: 'Street A', 'Street B', and'Street C'. Also please label 'Sunset Avenue Ext'.
434.296.5832 ext. 3384
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
- No objections
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
1. Streets that are less then 29 ft FC/FC shall be marked on one side No Parking per the Fire Offical.
Please contact Fire Marshal Office for proper markings. 296 -5833
RWSA — Victoria Fort
I. Coordinate water taps with ACSA and Wintergreen Farm to minimize the number of connections
to the 20" RWSA water line.
2. The current sanitary sewer design includes 3 crossings with the RWSA water line. The design
should be revised to minimize the number of required utility crossings.
ACSA — Alex Morrison
1) Final water and sewer utility plans are required for review by the ACSA. Submit 3 copies of the plan
along with water and sewer data sheets to the ACSA, Attn: Jeremy Lynn, P.E., to begin the review process.
2) The water utilities near the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Sunset Avenue are incorrectly
shown.
3) Sunset Avenue is incorrectly labeled.
4) Per RWSA comments the applicant will need to reduce the number of sewer crossing with the existing
24" water main as well as the number of proposed connections to the water main.
5) RWSA review and approval required for all utility crossings with RWSA infrastructure as well as all
connections to RWSA infrastructure.
VDOT— Troy Austin
- Comments pending
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(,albemarle.ora or 434 -296-
5832 ext. 3443 fog° further° information or if you have questions.
�pF hl./lh.�y
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Christopher Perez, Planning
From: Justin Deel, Engineering
Date: 16 March 2015
Subject: Sunset Overlook (SDP201500006)
The initial site plan for Sunset Overlook has been reviewed. The following concerns should be addressed;
1. Remove disturbances from preserved slopes. Aerial topography will not warrant removal of
preserved slope designations. A field survey provided by a licensed Professional Surveyor would
be required. In addition, while it is possible that a field survey may prove that some slopes
designated as preserved are less than 25 %, it will likely warrant additional areas to be designated
as preserved, as the site must be reevaluated as a whole. The steep slopes overlay district tries to
preserve contiguous areas, so results of any new evaluation will need to avoid breaking slope areas
into fragments. [39.7.4(b)(h)]
2. Stormwater management does not appear adequately addressed with this plan. A large portion, if
not majority, of the site appears to be untreated. SWM facilities would be better suited at the low
side of the site (B 1 and B2). The proposed drainage to these facilities would be very difficult to
implement, if possible, and appear to only treat the road, at best. Much of the drainage intended,
presumably, to be captured by SWM Al would bypass this facility. It is unclear to us how your
SWM plan would be effectively implemented, given the locations of your facilities. A VRRM
spreadsheet printout should be provided showing how you plan to comply with Type IIB criteria.
3. Proposed grading, generally, does not tie in with existing topography on this plan. All proposed
grading, including for SWM facilities, must be provided and tie in with existing topography.
Provide more labels for proposed topography.
4. The drop inlets between lots 14 and 15 appears to route stormwater from "Street A" and much of
the western portion of the site directly offsite, untreated. This must be changed.
5. A County approved turnaround must be provided at the end of all proposed streets (Street C), see
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. Turnarounds should be 6% grade or flatter.
6. Arrangements must be made and documented with the owner of parcel 76 -52N concerning grading
on that off -site property and removal of the driveway and along Street A. Lots cannot overlap this
parcel (Lot 16). Additionally, it must be shown that excess runoff will not pass through this or
other parcels as a result of this development.
7. SWM facilities cannot be on residential lots.
S. Retaining walls should not result in the disturbance of preserved slopes. Please adjust retaining
wall heights and locations.
9. Retaining walls must be, at minimum, a distance equal to the height of the wall away from
adjacent properties, please adjust. Alternatively, easements for work on adjacent property should
be provided.
10. More detail is needed to show how the retaining wall extends into SWM B 1.
11. On- street parking must be striped.
il?:'.:. SIR 2.01