Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500119 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-12-11COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 December 11, 2015 Alan Franklin 427 Cranberry Lane Crozet VA 22932 RE: SUB201500119 Rivanna Village — Road Plans Dear Sir: 1. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 31 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 and/or final subdivision plat approval. Rev 1. The applicant has chosen to bond the necessary improvements; however, the improvements are not included in the road plan. The County Engineer shall determine what shall be required to bond these improvements as proposed. 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... " Rev 1. Comment still valid. Revisions to the CTM are required (see comments on CTM dated 12- 9 -15). Discrepancies between road plan and rezoning [Code of Development Section 2.3, Application Plan] The lots in Block E shall be served by a rear alley and not by Main Street. Either revise to serve these lots with the alley or request a Variation to the Code of Development and the Application plan. This item will be required to go to the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval. Rev 1. Comment has not been adequately addressed and remains valid. 4. [Application Plan - Phasing] The proposed blocks and phase lines 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. This item will be required to go to the Board of Supervisors for review prior to approval. Rev 1. Comment addressed. * Block D (D1 and D2) — Block D shall be contained in Phase 4; however, the road plan depicts portions of Block D in Phase 1. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. * Phase limits of Block E shall line up with Sycamore Lane; however, the road plan has this block lining up with Private Alley C. Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. Rev 1. Comment addressed. * Phase limits of Block F shall line up with Sycamore Lane; however, the road plan has this block lining up with Private Alley C. Please address this discrepancy between the road plan and the rezoning. Rev 1. Comment addressed. * Phase 1 shall only contain Blocks A, B, C, and E. If the road plan is meant to cover multiple phases assure the title of the plans accurately reflects this. Revise appropriately. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 5. [Code of Development - sheet 5 of Exhibit B] The following two sections of roads do not match the typical road designs: • 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. VDOT also commented on this. Rev 1. Comment addressed. • 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 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 "; if the note is merely to signify the temporary condition of this area, provide a note to that affect. Rev 1. Comment addressed. Landscaping [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). The road plan is the appropriate document to locate all the required plantings within the 70' buffer. The plantings in the 70' buffer shall be bonded on the road plan. Rev 1. Comment addressed. [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 the plan. ARB has also commented on this item below. Rev 1. Comment partially addressed; however, the area of preserved trees along Glenmore Way, west of the fire station, is very narrow. For this area, on the plan depict the trees and provide their size and common name. Also, in this location a large amount of grading is taking place to construct the SWM/BMP pond. This construction is causing a large void in the landscape buffer. Per the Code of Development this improvement is permitted in the 70' buffer; however, plantings must be re- established on graded areas within the buffer. Revise landscape plan to provide additional plantings in this area to re- establish the buffer. 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. On the landscape plan show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and the type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. Rev 1. Comment partially addressed. On the plan provide the type of protective fencing. 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 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. ARB comments are provided below (A and B): 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 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. Rev 1. Comment partially addressed; however, it is not clear from the plan that a true buffer will remain along the first 130' of Glenmore Way (approx., measured from the intersection at Rt. 250). The existing wooded area does not appear particularly dense, and trees will be removed to establish the path, making the area even less dense. Identify on the plan existing trees to remain in this area (by size and species). Show supplemental trees as necessary to establish a consistent appearance with the new buffer areas to be planted. 10. [Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9.5(d) of County Code] Throughout the plan please label and depict the 70' Glenmore Way buffer. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 11. [Code of Development Section 5.2, and Section 32.7.9.5(d) of County Code] On the landscaping plan, please provide the calculations for the required street trees. "One (1) large street tree shall be required for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage... " Rev 1. Comment partially addressed; however, deducting driveway cuts from street frontage is not permitted when calculating required street trees. Revise street tree calculations and street tree plantings. Other 12. [Comment] On the road plans assure each proposed public road is appropriately labeled as Public Road. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 14. [Application Plan] On sheet C1.1 `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. Suggested note: "Cul -de -sac permitted per note #7 on approved Application Plan ". Rev 1. Comment addressed. 15. [Application Plan] In Block B Steamer Drive has been designed with a cul -de -sac instead of a through road. With the redesign the trail connection at that intersection is no longer provided. Provide a trail connection at the intersection of Rte 250 and Glenmore Way. Rev 1. Comment partially addressed with trail realignment; however, the trail shall connect to the Glenmore Way. 16. [Comment] On sheet C2.0 the widening of Glenmore Way to 24' width is proposed. It is unclear if 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, the road plan will be sufficient to cover the work. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 17. [Comment] On sheet CO. 1, for Project Data, under Zoning, Proffers, or Setbacks assure it clearly lists "Code of Development dated June 9, 2014 and titled: Rivanna Village Amended and Restated Code of Development applies to this development ". Rev 1. Comment addressed. New comment on revision 18. [Proffer 10(A), Design Standards Manual] Shared Use Path. The shared use path shall be a minimum width of 14 foot, made up of 10 foot surfaced (asphalt over aggregate base) with 2 foot cleared shoulders on each side. At a minimum revise the plan to provide the minimum required width; however, when determining the ultimate width of the path it is suggested that the developer take into consideration the volume and nature of the existing use of Glenmore Way by pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrian rides. The path is meant to serve all users. If it is later determined that this path does not serve all users a second shared use path shall be required. 19. [Comment] On the landscape plan, behind Lot B 15, a portion of the shared use path is mislabeled as nature trail. Revise. Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperezkalbemarle.org or 434- 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.