Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500119 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-09-15COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 September 15, 2015 Alan Franklin 427 Cranberry Lane Crozet VA 22932 RE: SUB201500119 Rivanna Village — Road Plans (Phase 1 Blocks A, B, C, D, and E) Dear Sir: 1. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 3] Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. "The owner shall either construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or bond these improvements prior to approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the development... " The above shall take place prior to final site plan approval. It is advisable that the road plans be revised to include the above improvements OR an additional road plan shall be submitted and review /approved to cover these improvements so that they may be built or bonded prior to the 1" final site plan approval as dictated by the proffer. 2. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 101 The `CTM' shall be coordinated with road plans under review. Also, please be aware: "The owner shall obtain approval of the CTMPlan by the Director before the County approves any grading permit for the property... " Discrepancies between road plan and rezoning 3. [Code of Development Section 2.3, Application Plan] The code of development and the application plan depict and describe Block E as being served by a rear alley; however, no alley has been depicted on the road plans, rather these lots appear to be served by Main Street. Either revise to provide such an alley that will serve these units or request a Variation to the Code of Development and the Application plan which will be required to go to the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval. 4. [Application Plan - Phasing] Portions of Blocks C, D, E, and F and phase lines for phase 1 and 4 depicted and labeled on the road plan do not match up with the rezoning. Either revise the labeling to match the rezoning or request a Variation to the Code of Development and the Application plan which will be required to go to the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval. * On the road plan Block D (D1 and D2) - The application plan lists Block D as being contain in Phase 4; however, the road plan has pulled portions of Block D into Phase 1. Is this a typographical error and D1 &D2 should be relabeled as portions of Block C? Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. * On the road plan Block E ends across from `Private Alley C'; however, the rezoning has Block E ending across from `Sycamore Lane'. Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. * On the road plan Block F starts across from `Private Alley C'; however, the rezoning has Block F starting across from `Sycamore Lane'. Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. * Phase 1 shall only contain Blocks A, B, C, and E. If this road plan is meant to cover multiple phases assure it is appropriately labeled on the cover sheet/ title of the road plans and assure the phase lines are correctly labeled within the road plan. Revise appropriately. 5. [Code of Development - sheet 5 of Exhibit B] The Code of Development relies on sheet 5 of Exhibit B dated 7 -15 -13 for typical road sections. Two of the sections provided on the road plan do not match the code of development in width (A and B below). A) The typical street section w/ parking on both sides of the street as depicted on Sheet C2.4 of the road plan does not meet the minimum requirements of the Code of Development. It appears to be one (1) foot short of the required sixty one (6 1) foot R/W. MOT also commented on this. B) The typical street section w/ no street parking or one side only as depicted on Sheet C2.4 of the road plan does not meet the minimum requirements of the Code of Development. It appears to be two (2) foot short of the required thirty one (3 1) foot curb to curb measurement. Also, the Private Alley `B' and `C' typical sections on sheet C2.4 of the road plan provide for "Establishing turf on final grades in future parking area "; however, the Code of Development sheet 5 Exhibit B requires these parking spaces to meet VDOT standards of 2" SM -9.5A, 3" BM -25, 6" VDOT #21A. Notably the code of development also provides for Alterative parking surfaces in section 7.3 subject to prior review and approval by the Director of Community Development, or his designee. Please explain how the turf is going to be maintained with residential vehicle usage? Are these to be grass pavers? Engineering will need to sign off on the surface material of these spaces before the spaces are approvable. Alternatively if the note is merely to signify the temporary condition of this area as being turf in the intern please disregard the above comment and signify on the plans that this is a temporary condition until future parking area is designed and approved. Also, the proposed future parking expansions listed in Block C (C1 -C4) appear possible; however, their design shall be evaluated at the time of the site plan. Landscaping 6. [Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9.5(d) of County Code] During the review of the initial site plan for Block A (SDP2015 -36) planning staff guided the applicant to revise the plan to provide all required plantings within the 70' Glenmore Way buffer on the landscape plan of the final site plan rather than the road plan. However, based on my review of the road plan and the unit type depicted in Block B please disregard that comment (the initial site plan conditions of approval letter will reflect this new guidance). Rather the road plan is the appropriate document to locate all the required plantings within the 70' buffer. The plantings in the 70' buffer will be bonded on the road plan. 7. [Application Plan, Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9 of County Code] The landscape plan depicts proposed plantings in the 70' buffer; however, there are large pockets of blank space throughout the buffer area. Are these areas where existing trees are to be preserved? If so, depict these trees and provide their size and common name on existing conditions sheet of the plan. ARB has also commented on this item below. 8. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(b)] Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. If you intend to use existing trees to satisfy any of the landscape plan requirements, please include the following: 1. Areas and other features shown on landscape plan. The landscape plan shall show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. 2. Conservation checklist. The applicant shall sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the agent in a particular case, the checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages III -393 through III -413, and as hereafter amended. 9. [Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9 of County Code] Based on the proximity to Rte. 250 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is required to review the plantings in the portion of the 70' Glenmore Way buffer situated in Block B. The landscape sheet provided in the road plans has been given to the ARB planner for consideration. Her comments are provided below (A, B, and C): A) The areas on Sheet C5.0 that show a mix of individual trees adequately meet Entrance Corridor requirements due to the quantity of trees proposed. B) It is not clear from the plan how the first 130' of buffer at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Glenmore Way (approx., measured along Glenmore Way) will be treated. If existing trees are to remain in this area, this should be noted on the plan and individual existing trees to remain should be identified by species and size. The quantity of trees to remain in this area should be sufficient to provide a consistent appearance with the buffer areas to be planted. Consider any impacts of path construction when showing existing trees to remain. If existing trees to remain are not sufficient, show new trees to be planted in this area. C) Two other areas in the Glenmore Way buffer do not show individual trees to remain or to be planted. It is recommended that these areas be treated as in comment B, above. 10. [Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9.5(d) of County Code] On the landscape plan and all other sheets of the road plan please label and depict the 70' Glenmore Way buffer. 11. [Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9.5(d) of County Code] On the landscaping sheet C5.0, please provide the calculations for the required street trees so that staff may verify the adequate numbers of plantings. "One (1) large street tree shall be required for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage... " Other 12. [Comment] On the road plans assure each proposed public road is appropriately labeled as Public Road. 13. [Comment] Parking requirements, Amenity space requirements, and Green Space requirements listed on sheet CO.1 have not been reviewed nor approved during the review of this road plan as there have been no site plan submittals or subdivision plat submittals for any section of this project except Block A. Please remove these notes from the road plan. 14. [Application Plan] On sheet C 1.1 `Steamer Drive' cul -de -sacs in Block B. This design is permitted per the approved rezoning application plan. To avoid confusion on the road plans assure the note which reads: "Potential cul -de -sac area see note #7" is revised to say something to the affect of "Cul -de -sac permitted per note #7 on approved Application Plan ". 15. [Application Plan] As mentioned above `Steamer Drive' in Block B has been designed with a cul -de- sac. As such the trail connection at that intersection is being lost. To make up for this pedestrian access deficit provide a trail connection at the intersection of Rte 250 and Glenmore Way. 16. [Comment] On sheet C2.0 there is proposed widening of Glenmore Way to 24'. It is unclear is this improvement is happening within the existing VDOT Right of Way OR whether it's on land owned by Rivanna Village. If it is on land owned by Rivanna Village a plat of dedication shall be required to dedicate this portion of land to public use. If it is within the existing VDOT right of way, this road plan will be sufficient to cover the work. 17. [Comment] On sheet CO. 1, for Project Data, under Zoning, Proffers, or Setbacks assure it clearly states that a "Code of Development dated June 9, 2014 and titled: Rivanna Village Amended and Restated Code of Development applies to this development ". Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez&albemarle.org or 434 -296- 5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.