HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500006 Action Letter 2015-10-16 (2)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone 434) 296 -5832
October 16, 2015
Justin Shimp
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP - 201500006 Sunset Overlook. Site Plan - Initial
Dear Sir,
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:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $1,500.
Please submit 11 copies of the final plans 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 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 for the attached conditions from the following agencies /reviewers have been obtained:
SRC Members:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) - 3 copies
Albemarle County Planning Services (Architectural Review Board) - (1 Copy of the site plan is required to
be submitted for review + full ARB submittal)
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) - 1 copy
Albemarle County Building Inspections (Building Official) - 1 copy
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) - 1 copy
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue - 1 copy
Albemarle County Service Authority — 1 copy
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority — 1 copy
Virginia Department of Transportation - 1 copy
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact me at
Extension 3443, cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Plannins Services (Planner) - 3 copies
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. [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.
[32.5.2(4), 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. This comment is a major item which remained unaddressed.
If the applicant is unable to obtain County Engineering approval of the new topographic information
to facilitate the design as proposed on the initial site plan and a redesign is required which
substantially changes the design and product from the initial site plan, then the new proposal will be
required to go back through the initial site plan process, to include SRC and a new application fee.
When the final site plan is submitted the Director of Planning and I will go through the proposal and
make a determination as to the initial's ability to act as the initial for the revised final, or determine
that it is not close enough and the applicant would be required to go back through the process with the
new design.
(See attached Engineering's comments dated 10 -7 -I5)
4. [Comment] Per Engineering comments dated 10 -7 -15 a County approved turnaround must be
provided at the end of all proposed streets, specifically `Street C'. If providing an approved
turnaround (cul -de -sac) for `Street C' substantially changes the design and product from the initial
site plan, then the new proposal will be required to go back through the initial site plan process, to
include SRC and a new application fee. When the final site plan is submitted the Director of Planning
and I will go through the proposal and make a determination as to the initial's ability to act as the
initial for the revised final, or determine that it is not close enough and the applicant would be
required to go back through the process with the new design.
(See attached Engineering's comments dated 10 -7 -15)
[14 -401] Double frontage lots. Double frontage lots for single family detached and attached
residential uses are prohibited. The prohibition of double frontage lots may be 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 3 -5 for double frontage. Please make the request
under 14- 203.1(B). The final subdivision plat approval shall be withheld till the item is either
approved or appropriately redesigned. Notably such a waiver request has not been submitted for
County review prior to initial site plan being conditionally approved. Please provide the waiver
request and all required information for staff consideration. If the request is approved the lots shall be screened as
provided in 14 -419 (as provided in section 18- 32.7.9.7). The required screening shall be within a landscape easement that shall be
recorded with a maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney.
6. [32.5.1(c),14 -404] On Sheet 1, under Parcel Summary, a 34,291 SF portion of TMP 76 -52 is
excluded from the site calculations. 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
2
to be applied for and approved with the subdivision plat. Throughout the initial site plan there are
notes which read: "Awaiting approval of 404 waiver ". Notably such a waiver request has not been
submitted for County review prior to initial site plan being conditionally approved. Please provide the
waiver request and all required information for staff consideration.
7. [Comment] The density calculations on the final site plan shall be revised to account for the 313 lot
the applicant seems to be seeking as part of the subdivision of the parcel pending a 404 waiver
submittal, review and possible approval (per notes on sheet C3). If a 404 waiver is not granted it is
suggested this land either be used for stormwater management or open space and included in the total
for the site plan.
8. 132.5.2(i), 4.6.3, 4.19, 33.5] Setbacks. On sheet C5 the setbacks for Lots 1— 7 are not accurately
labeled/depicted and need to be revised appropriately:
- As depicted Lots 1, 2, 6 and 7 rely on Old Lynchburg Road for their frontage and the front setback
of these lots shall be no greater than 25' from that road. The Rear setback is measured from the edge
of the alley easement (there is no maximum). For Lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 shall be labeled/depicted as such.
It appears you could adjust the building location and meet the 25' setbacks for each. Revise
appropriately.
- Lots 3 -5 are double fronta_ e(subject to the exception request mentioned in comment #5 above.
Frontage for each of the _lots' front ,yards shall not exceed 25' maximum setback. It appears you could
adjust the building location and meet the 25' setbacks for each. Otherwise the lots will require a front
setback greater than 25' and a Special Exception request shall be made subject to Section 33.5 and
4.19 and is subject to BOS review, and possibly PC review if staff does not recommend approval.
- Also, on sheet C4 it appears there is a typographical error for the front setback of Lot 23, currently
it's listed as 25' BSL; however, it truly should be 5' BSL.
9. [32.5.1(c), 18-15.3,4.11.3] Setbacks. To avoid confusion the setbacks listed on Sheet Cl shall be
revised on the final site plan to also list a side setback of: "Side setback — none (see Building
separation) ", and also list the applicable `Garage minimum setbacks' under setbacks rather than the
parking schedule. Revise appropriately.
10. [Comment] The applicant has stated that they purchased TMP 76 -52N and is utilizing this area in the
development. This parcels boundary lines shall be vacated with the final plat or a subsequent plat and
recorded in the clerk's office. Assure DB page information for this transaction is on the final site plan.
11. [18- 15.5,18- 15.3,18- 4.71 Cluster Development. Label all Open Space on the plan and provide the
square footages of each open space area individually as well as combined. Currently staff is unable to
locate the proposed 132,987 SF of open space onsite; rather, staff has only been able to locate 38,086
SF. Revise appropriately.
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.
12. [32.5.2(a)] 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). Revise appropriately.
13. [32.5.2(n)] There is an existing paved pedestrian path along Old Lynchburg Road (Rte 63 1) which
runs behind Lots 1 — 7. On the final site plan assure the existing trail is depicted on the plans. Revise
appropriately.
14. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3] Sidewalks. Assure that sidewalks are provided along Sunset Avenue Extended
for the duration of the property being developed. The sidewalk shall be provided along the frontage of
the open space on Sunset Avenue Extended. Revise to assure this sidewalk is continued to the
adjacent property line.
15. [32.5.2(n)] On the plan provide the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and
driveways.
16. [32.5.2(1)] 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.
17. [32.5.2(i),14- 234,14 -235] This plan proposes three private streets. While private streets are not
reviewed or approved with site plan applications, it should be noted that private street requests must
be submitted pursuant to Section 14 -234 along with justifications, which will be reviewed when the
subdivision application is submitted. This private street request can be reviewed administratively due
to the presence of attached dwellings. Also pursuant to Section 14 -235: A maintenance agreement for
the private street must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the
subdivision application. The final plat shall contain the statements required by Sec 14- 303(N). Also,
the subdivider shall provide surety for the completion of the private street as required by section 14-
435 if the private street will not be completed prior to approval of the final plat.
18. [Comment] VDOT approval of the three proposed entrances to the site shall be required prior to final
site plan approval.
19. [32.5.2(i)] The street names provided for the private streets are not approved names; see E911
comments for additional information.
20. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6, 4.12.41 The plans lists 67.5 spaces required; however, spaces shall be rounded off
to the nearest whole number. Assure it is correctly depicted on the final site plan as 68.
As such, the site requires 68 spaces and is provided with 136 spaces; however, the site is not
permitted to have more than 20% of the required spaces for the use. Thus please revised the
calculations to provide a more accurate count of the `spaces provided'. Planning staff suggests the
following: "Required.- 60 spaces and 8 guest spaces " "Provided.- 60 spaces garage and driveway,
and 12 guest spaces ".
21. [4.12.16] The 12 guest parking spaces are required to meet minimum design standards as provided for
in Section 4.12.16. Thus for a 24' aisle the spaces shall be 9' wide x 18' long. Assure the width of
the spaces is provided on the final site plan.
22. [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)."
23. [32.5.2(o)] Sunset Avenue Extended Road Improvements. Prior to final site plan approval the Rd
widening/dedication to public use will need to take place on a subdivision plat to be reviewed by the
County, approved, and then recorded in the Clerk's Office prior to final site plan approval. The DB
page information of this action shall be provided on the final site plan.
24. [Comment] On the final site plan assure the types of retaining walls are provided (ie. Geogrid or
whatever type they are).
25. 132.5.2(i)] Street trees shall be required for this development. Prior to final site plan approval
landscape plan shall be provided.
26. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3(a),14 -4221 The 6' wide landscape islands shall be labeled on the plans.
27. 132.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 All of the proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent
residential lots. Provide the required screening.
28. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.41 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.
29. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval:
A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9].
30. [32.5.1(c)] On sheet C12 sight distance line is depicted over TMP 76 -52E, and 52D. All offsite
easements shall be applied for /reviewed/approved /recorded prior to final site plan approval.
ARB — Margaret Maliszewski (I Copy of the site plan is required to be submitted for review + full
ARB submittal
• 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.
Engineering Comments — Justin Deel (l Copy is required to be submitted for review)
See attached comments dated 10 -7 -15
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer l Covy is required to be submitted for review
- No objections
E911— Andrew Slack l Copy is re uired to be submitted for review
1. The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for approval for
each of the following: 'Street B', and'Street C'. 434.296.5832 ext. 3384
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer (1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. No objections
ACSA — Alex Morrison (I Copy is required to be submitted for review)
I have reviewed the initial plan and hereby recommend approval with the following conditions:
• Submit 3 copies of the utility plan along with water and sewer data sheets to the ACSA (Attn:
Michael Vieira, P.E.) for a formal construction review.
• The ACSA will evaluate the number and location of water connection to the RWSA transmission
main during the construction review process.
• The ACSA will evaluate the location of the sewer connection during the construction review
phase.
RWSA — Victoria Fort 0 Cove is required to be submitted for review)
RWSA has reviewed the initial site development plan for Sunset Overlook as prepared by Shimp
Engineering and dated 21212015, with latest revision dated 9/1012015, and has the following comments
for the applicant:
1. In a previous comment (see attached) RWSA requested that the applicant coordinate with
Wintergreen Farm and ACSA to minimize the number of taps on the RWSA transmission main
along this portion of Sunset Avenue Extended (there are currently 3 connections proposed to
serve the 30 units in Sunset Overlook as well as 2 connections to serve Wintergreen, Farm across
the street). This does not appear to have been addressed in the comment response letter or on the
plans.
I noted that in the comment response letter, the applicant stated that some comments were not addressed
because they did not fall under preliminary site plan review. Please confirm whether this is the case with
our previous comment and if so, please note that RWSA will require that consideration be given to this
matter prior to final site plan approval.
VDOT— Troy Austin (1 Cove is required to be submitted for review)
See attached comments dated 10 -7 -15
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact
me at Extension 3443, cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
0
County of Albemarle
Department of Communitv Development
Memorandum
To: Christopher Perez, Planning
From: Justin Deel, Engineering
Date: 7 October 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. [30.7.4(b)(h)]
Comment not addressed. Per the ordinance section noted above; new topographic information
should be based on more accurate or better technical data demonstrating that slopes are less than
twenty -five percent, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer (emphasis added). The County
Engineer requires either a field survey, provided by a licensed Professional Survey, or convincing
certified documentation that the new aerial topographic source is more accurate than the existing
steep slopes overlay district topography.
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 132). 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.
Comment not addressed. The added detention systems do not address the water quality concern
noted above. How will the Type IIB water quality criteria be met? The SWM calculation packet,
referenced in the comment response letter, was not found. The comment response letter states that
the majority of the site will be treated via a bio retention pond; however, it is difficult to see how
this is possible given that the bio retention filters are still located on the high side of the site.
Please address.
3. 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.
Comment not addressed. T- or branch -type turnarounds are not permitted. Provide an approved
turnaround (cul -de -sac) for Street C. See Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
hq:// www.albemarle.org/ul2load/images /forms _center /departments/community development/for
ms/design standards—manual/Albemarle Cgg* Design Standards Manual 2015-04 -
25_draft.pdf
4. 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.
Comment not addressed. County GIS does not indicate that 76 -52N has been purchased by the
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
project parcel owner.
5. Retaining walls should not result in the disturbance of preserved slopes. Please adjust retaining
wall heights and locations.
Comment not addressed. Retaining walls are still located within the preserved slope overlay, see
comment 1.
6. 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.
Comment not addressed. There is an 8' retaining wall less than 5' from the 76 -52C parcel
boundary. Please address.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 oranngge P40
Culpeper VupinM 22701
Charles & Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
October 7, 2015
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2015 -00006 Sunset Overlook Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan Sunset Overlook, latest revision date of September 10, 2015, as
submitted by Shimp Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. Previous comment: Right and left turn lane warrants need to be provided for review.
2. Streets "$" and "C" need to be designed in accordance with the detail. for a "Commercial
Entrance To Serve A Private Road/Street" as shown in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
Most notably, the widths of the roads need to be a minimum of 24' as shown in the detail. The
entrance radii should also be labeled,
3. Previous comment: The curbing shown on this plan appears to be drawn as CG -2. The curbing
should be CG-6.
4. Sheet C12:
a. Line of sight easements should be shown.
b. Each private street should be labeled on plan view.
5. Storm sewer/Culvert profiles and calculations shall be provided during the Road Plan/Final Site
plan submittal.
6. Typical sections for the roadways shall be provided during the Road Plan/Final Site plan
submittal.
7. Pavement design calculations shall meet or exceed Sunset Ave, Extended.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434)
422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly Plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING