Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500028 Action Letter 2015-07-24�� ' •mow. r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 24, 2015 Chris Mulligan Roudabush & Gale 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2015 -028 Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17/18- Initial Site Plan Mr. Mulligan: The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced site plan. 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 site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter diligently pursues approval of the final site plan. The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are received: A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code and addresses requirements attached to this letter from the Site Review Committee Members. Please note that the comments from Albemarle County Police are recommendations and are not requirements that need to be addressed. There may also be additional recommendations from reviewers, please correspond directly with the reviewer concerning any questions regarding recommendations or requirements. A fee of $1,500. Please submit 8 copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The assigned Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies (except for ACSA, please submit 3 copies directly to them). Once you receive the first set of comments on the final site plan, please work with each reviewer individually to satisfy their requirements. The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals from Site Review Committee members have been obtained. If you have any questions about the conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact me at Extension 3004, myaniglos @albemarle.org. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Principal Planner �YpF AL��, 4 �P V l C? t -1. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Chris Mulligan (cmulligan @roudabush.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Principal Planner Division: Planning Services Date: July 24, 2015 Subject: SDP - 2015 -028 Old Trail- Blocks 10, 16, 17/18- Initial Site Plan The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to 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.] Requirements: 1. [32.5.2; Proffers /COD] Provide a table that contains all the information regarding all the proposed blocks, built and unbuilt /under review. This table is necessary to track all the requirements of the ZMA. 2. [32.5.2] Will any of the lots be proposed as affordable? A minimum of 15% of affordable units are required per the proffer. Identify which lots /units will be affordable. 3. [32.5.2] Break up the parking calculations. Two spaces are required for each single family detached unit, and 2.25 for each single family attached /townhouse unit. It is also unclear if on street spaces are being counted towards parking. 4. [32.5.2] An easement for the sidewalks and planting strips will need to be established to assure maintenance of these areas. Generally, the County prefers that these areas be within the right of way. Is there a reason why these need to be within the lots? All other portions of Old Trail have the sidewalks and planting strips within the right of way. Also, to be consistent with the currently deferred rezoning submittal, it might be good to match those setbacks proposed in that document and have the landscape and sidewalk within the right of way. 5. [32.5.2] Provide information on lot coverage. This can be included in the table requested in comment #2. 6. [Variations /Exceptions] The requests are under review and will be scheduled shortly for the PC and the Board, as applicable. Staff will be in touch concerning the dates. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3004 for further information. . "lRGSl'�ZA County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Project: Old Trail Village Block 10, 16 & 17/18 - Initial Plan preparer: Bill Ledbetter, Raleigh Davis — Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc 914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, bledbettergroudabush.com, rdavis@roudabush. com Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100] Dave Brockman, dave(a)oldtrailvilla eg com Plan received date: 3 June 2015 Date of comments: 9 Jul 2015 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Megan Yaniglos SDP2015 -00028 1. RW — Extend RW of public /private streets one foot (1') behind sidewalks consistent with RW shown for approved road plans, prior blocks of development at Old Trail Village. Ref. sheet 10, 61' PUBLIC RW, Fielding Run Drive; sheet 11, 55' Existing Public R -O -W, Rowcross Street. 2. To extent practical, keep all storm drain pipes within right of way. Note, for example, pipe at NE corner, Lot 8 (Upland and Rowcross); at SE corner, Lot 8 (Alley and Rowcross); or at SE comer, Lot 14 (Golf Drive and Rowcross). Please accept this comment applicable to future design. Maintenance responsibility is unworkable if design links inlets via pipes that cross lots via easements that propose to alternate public and private maintenance. Parties with maintenance responsibility may rightly contest responsibility. It will save time during the review process if design abandons narrow right -of -way and establish right -of -way 1' beyond sidewalks (standard design practice). VDOT dedicates public right -of -way to the County, which does not have a public works department to maintain public storm drain facilities. 3. 38' CL radius, Rowcross, sheet 8, does not meet public street standards. Please revise. 4. Alley does not provide road frontage for Lots 17 -21 (block 17, sheet 8); propose street. 5. Alley does not provide road frontage for Lots 10 -14 (block 17, sheet 7); propose street, not alley. Public /private street standards apply to proposed travel ways serving Lots 10 -14 and 17 -21 (block 17/18). 6. Sheet 8 — Eliminate 16 perpendicular parking spaces at open space off Alley opposite Court Mont — parallel parking only. Concerns: safety (proximity to street comers; reverse maneuvers); sight distance (parked vehicles obstruct). [VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B.1 A.D. — perpendicular, on- street parking: normally prohibited; Also, Road Design Manual, Appendix Q. For fanal site plan 7. Label stream buffer (dashed lines), sheets 5, 8. 8. Position SWM facilities (ponds) outside stream buffers. 9. Provide guardrail, Rowcross, between street and SWM pond. 10. Switch labels near SWM Pond that read proposed sanitary manhole (typical), proposed storm sewer M.H. (sheets 8, 11). 11. Drainage, sheet 13, Lots 10 -15: Engineering review drainage plan checklist: "Provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense development where fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes in easements rather than ditches. {Policy }" Provide yard inlet as necessary. 12. Check loop street design at open space off Alley opposite Court Mont against 14- 412.A.2: sight distance not less than 100', radius for horizontal curvature 40' or greater. 13. SWM —if proposed SWM facilities are located on County property, provide HOA Maintenance Agreements. Reserve Drainage & Access Easement/s to SWM facilities on Parks and Recreation property for OTV HOA. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 14. Ensure proposed SWM facilities and development are consistent with revised Master (Conceptual) prepared by Stantec. Conceptual SWMP approved with ZMA200400024 governs site plan/subdivision development with respect to state regulations until and unless a revised Master plan is approved. Contact John Anderson, Engineering Dept, if any questions. ianderson2(&albemarle.org / 434 - 296 -5832 -0069 Thank you File: SDP201500028 -Old Trail blocks 10, 16, 17 -18 070915 ISP C©mmuN WEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMEA i OF r RAiv5PVR r a n lulu 1601 Orange Road CWP re: Yryimi- 22701 Charles ,m. Rllpatricx, P.E. camrninNien.. July 7; 20 t D Ms. Megan Yaniglu5 Cuu„ty of Albe„ta,ie De.artme,,t or Cummut,ity Developnrz�„t 401 McIntire icoad Charlottesville. VA 22902 Re: SDP -2015 -00028 - Old Trail Blocks 10. 16,17 & 18 Dear Ms. Yaniglos: We have reviewed the Initial Site plan; submitted by Roudabush, Gale & A33ociate3, L.C., with a plan dates of May 8, 2015, and we offer the tollowing comments: 1. All sheets should be sibs,i by a prufe53;u.al enginee, u, clearly narked "Preliminary". 2. A plan legend should be provided. 3. The design speed should be provided on the plan sheets and t.rofije3. 4. i nu existing and proposed curb types and signage should be clearly labeled througnv,,,t the plµ., 3ncets. 5. The radius of all intersection returns, ,,,z;aaured fro,,, the tace of curb_ should be labeled. The minirnurn radius is 2D7 . 6. The angle between road centerlines at each skew should be clearly moeled. 7. Ail existing and proposed easements within or imtneaimely adjacent to State maintained rignt - -Wr -,ry ay should oe clen, ly labeled (include the use and legal reterence). 8. Clearly identify all roadways to re.mi, privately „ta;utained ort the layout sheets. 9. When on street parking is on one side onl., ul:.u,ly identify tnu side of street the parking will be locates_ including the location of "No rarking -" si..,s. 10. Road puutilm should be includes with this submival. 11. Line -Vr 3ight profiles Snould be it,uIuded with this submittal. Sight line triangles should include the available signt 13tance, ort.ct trom the eage of travel way and centerline oftset. 12. Utility profiles and computations should be provided. 13. A detail 3huu15 be proviacd showing the roadway layout with HDT of each roadway. 14. Roadway Typical Section: l he sidewalk and butfer`planting strip cross -slope should be shown graphically. Street tries shuuln al3u be shvwt, graphically with a ainnension to the back of curb as applicable. The roadway dear„ 3pced shouiu also be identified. 15. Pavettent Marking/Signage Plan a. PavZment markings and 5ignage should be Shawn on the plan view and tv 3z:alc. b. All markings and appiupria,e signage shall be shawn in accordance witn the current vet5ion of the MUTCD and/or the Virginia Supplement lu the 1vtU i CD. c. Individual signs snuuia nave the MUTCD sign label ,eterence included U11 the plan. I6. We pretei all utilities to cross perpendicular to the street. For c7carnple: tnc sanitary Sewer fiv.,, thu Alley, Black 16_ c,ubsing Upland Drive as well as the sewer crossin5 Guir Dn ,,e, BIucK 16. 17. ror ease of review ail storm and sanitary structu,e labels should be added to the plan Sheets. 18. When an open cut is necessary for a utility tie -in it should be du,,c i„ accordaMCC with the land use permit (LUP -OC) — Open -cut Pavement Restoration Requirements. 19. Sight lines snuuid be prr video ter the Alley �4 t,ance. in Block 17. untu Fielding Run Drive. 20. The minimum centerline radius (up to 2000 ADT) is 200'. Tnc centerline ,adius, Block 18 Rvwcroa5_ Shuuld be updated accordingly. 21. A multi -way stop co„ t,uI can be usetul as a safety measure at intersections provides certain traffic cuAitions exist. An engineeri,tg Study should be perfunned to determine if multi -way stoYS should n4 imtalled. Fur caample: the intersection at Golf Dive and Fielding Run Drive as well as intersection of U1,ja d Drive anU Golf Dive. If you .xcd further i „tonnatiun concerning this project. please do not hesitate to contact me at �434) 422 -9894. Si„ce,ely_ Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Cuipcper District W= REEF ORtyIM[m MU0190 Review Comments DP201600028 Project Name: old Trail Village - Blocks 10, 16, & 17!18 Date Completed: ' Thursday, June 04, 2015 Reviewer: Andrew Slack DepartmentfDivisionfAgency: E911 Reviews Comments: Final Site Development Plan Review status: I Requested Changes F-] I Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: 071061 1515 Review Comments DP201600028 Project Name: old Trail Village - Blocks 10, 16, & 17!18 Date Completed: ' Monday, July 06, 2015 Final Site Development Plan Reviewer: Robbie Gilmer D e pa rtm e ntfD ivis i o nfAg e n cy: Fire Rescue Reviews Comments: Based on plans dated 518115 1_ Streets that are less than 29' FCJFC shall have both sides marked "No Parking" per Albemarle County Code- 2- Streets that are 29' FCJFC to 36' FCJFC shall be marked on one side "No Parking" per Albemarle County Code_ I Expand the alley in Block 17 to allow for a wider fire access to lots 9 -15 4_ Need approved fire access to lots 16 -22 in block 17. 5_ Fire Flow test required before final approval. Review status: I Requested Changes F-] I Page: County of Albemarle Printed On: F57710 6120'15 Megan Yaniglos From: Victoria Fort <vfort @rivanna.org> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:27 AM To: Megan Yaniglos Cc: Alex Morrison Subject: SDP201500028 Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 - Initial Site Plan Megan, According to the County Site Plan memo dated June 3, 2015, the County is currently reviewing the initial site plan for Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 (SDP201500028). Please note that as with all other development in the Crozet Area, these blocks will require a flow acceptance letter from RWSA prior to final site plan approval. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Victoria Victoria Fort, P.E. Civil Engineer Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 (P): (434) 977 -2970 ext. 205 (F): (434) 295 -1146 ACCREDITED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Initial Site Plan Lead Reviewer: Megan Yaniglos Item Number: SDP201500028 Project Name: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 Due Date: July 6, 2015 All Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations are considered to be advisory. The recommendations are meant to be utilized as a design strategy to create a safer environment for the future residents of the Old Trail community. Advisory Landscaping Recommendations All shrubbery and ornamental grasses used in foundation planting areas should follow the CPTED two foot six foot rule. Shrubs should be no taller than two feet in front of building windows. Tree crowns in common areas, near buildings, and along pedestrian walkways should be pruned no less than six feet from ground level to maximize surveillance opportunities. Shrubbery should always remain below the window line so natural surveillance is not hindered from the interior of the residence out onto property grounds. Shrubs, ornamental grasses, and ornamental flowering trees should be planted no less than six feet from pedestrian walkways to eliminate concealment and ambush opportunities. Shrubbery and ornamental grasses should be maintained at no more than two feet tall around pedestrian entranceways to eliminate concealment and ambush opportunities. Advisory Lighting Recommendations All lighting should be within the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) guidelines for minimum security lighting standards. It is advised that all pedestrian walkways, be illuminated to a minimum 1.0 fc horizontal on pavement and a minimum of .5 fc to .8 fc vertical 5' above ground. All lighting should demonstrate uniformity to eliminate any retinal light adaption conditions. All lighting on site should be at a 4:1 average to minimum ratio (background to face), and designed to limit light trespass and glare. Use pedestrian scale lighting (see below) in high pedestrian traffic areas. All lighting on site should be sufficient to allow facial recognition at thirty feet. Thirty feet is the minimum for reaction time to determine if a person is a potential threat. Advisory Territorial Recommendations Concrete sidewalks leading to the individual buildings from the public sidewalks should be constructed with pavers or different textures and colors to indicate a transition from public space to private space. All building entrances should be designed with front porches or stoops to promote territoriality and encourage natural surveillance. Pedestrian Scale Lighting Typical pedestrian scale luminaires are mounted at a height of 10 to 20 feet. Typical pedestrian zone lighting is usually mounted in the 12 to 18 ft. range. All luminaires should be LED equipped dark sky compliant and designed to minimize glare and light trespass. L MPO Steve Watson, ICPS, CPD Albemarle County Police Department Crime prevention Unit