HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500065 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2016-01-12 (2)ALg��
� �'IRGINZP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott@collins- engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, CLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 12, 2016
Subject: SDP201500065 Villas at Belvedere — Final Site Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments 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, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Preliminary Approval (from approval letter dated 9/29/15):
[Comment] This letter contains comments on both the Initial Site Development Plan and Preliminary Plat
applications, as many comments apply to both. All applicable code references may not be cited for each
comment; please ask for clarification on which comments apply to which application if necessary.
Revi : Comment still valid.
Final: This letter may include some plat related comments from the Initial Plan and Preliminary Plat
conditional approval letter, but only a Final Site Plan has been submitted so this application has
only been reviewed for Final Site Plan requirements.
2. [32.5.1(b)] The Final Site plan shall be submitted at 20 or 30 scale; many of the lines are difficult to
decipher at 40 scale.
Revl : Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.1(b)] Provide a matchline on sheet 2.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Provide all boundary dimensions; some are missing. Clearly show the boundary lines, many are
difficult to see with different lines and line types overlapping.
Revl : Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Some boundary information is still missing and several
boundaries are different than those shown on the Initial Plan; ensure all boundary lines are accurate
and properly dimensioned.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Clarify the differences in the boundary information from what is shown in GIS. GIS and County
Real Estate records appear to show that the `area reserved for future meadowcreek parkway' on TMP 62F-
E1 was actually dedicated (see DB 3543 PB 225); provide documentation that this area was not dedicated
or remove it from the plat. If abandonment of dedicated right -of -way is desired, the County will review your
proposal (once requested) and advise on how much area, if any, can be abandoned.
Revi : Comment not fully addressed. The dedicated area has been removed from the plan; however,
the acreages provided for the two subject parcels in the Notes section do not match that provided in
GIS (3.13 acre total acreage in GIS; plan states 3.35 acres) or the parcel labels. Please verify and
provide accurate acreage for the parcels included in this plan. Any reduction in site area below 3.34
acres will result in a reduction of dwelling units allowed.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. A portion of what is shown on this Site Plan is now an addition
to a previous subdivision (Dunlora 3A). Reference to this subdivision and the improvements shown
in support of the proposed subdivision lots should be removed from this Site Plan application.
Additionally, a portion of the acreage used for this Site Plan (9 townhouses) was included in that
previous subdivision; TMP62F -E1 and TMP62F -E2 were both included in the acreage for Dunlora 3A
and are listed in CAMA records as reserved area and emergency access easement supporting
Dunlora 3A. Before this site plan can be approved, a subdivision application (boundary line
adjustment) must be submitted and approved that transfers the necessary acreage from Dunlora 3A
to this Site Plan. The plat must show that Dunlora 3A will still have the necessary acreage to
support the number of existing lots shown on the previously approved plat. The application may
include the subdivision of the five proposed lots shown on this application but it isn't required.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Show all areas reserved for future meadowcreek parkway; the portion on TMP 61 -154B is
missing, and there appears to be an additional area shown on TMP 62F -E1 on the plat recorded in DB 3543
PG 225.
Revi: Comment still valid; "Future Dedication" areas are not shown.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. A strip from Shepherd's Ridge to Rio Road was also reserved;
show this area on the plan.
7. [32.5.2(a) and 14 -404] A variation /special exception of section 14 -404 will be necessary to develop this
project as proposed (see section 14- 404(B) & (D) and section 14- 203.1). Submit an application for a special
exception and list it, if approved, on the Cover Sheet.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment still valid; this special exception shall be submitted with the subdivision application
referenced in comment #5.
8. [32.5.2(a), 14- 302(B)8 & 4.19] Provide the correct setbacks and yards in both written and graphic form.
See section 4.19 for new setback and yard regulations. Verify your proposed layout meets new setback and
yard requirements.
Rev1: Comment still valid. The new setback regulations contain different standards for infill and
non - infill parcels. They also have maximum setbacks and garage setbacks. It appears that this
project may include a mix of infill and non - infill lots; please consult with Zoning to determine which
setbacks apply and verify that the proposed layout meets all setback and yard requirements. If lots
on Shepherds Ridge Road are determined to be infill, some may be unbuildable as proposed due to
required setbacks.
Final: Comment not addressed. The maximum setback for the townhouses is 25'; list this
requirement and show the line on the plan. Several of the proposed buildings do not meet this
maximum setback. Make sure all setback and yard requirements are met. As noted above, the
subdivision lots proposed in Dunlora are not being reviewed with this application.
9. [32.5.2(a) & 4.6.4] Provide the correct rear and side yards; the rear and side yards are measured from the
edge of the alley easement.
Rev1: Comment still valid. See comment above.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. The rear setback for lots 2 &3 should be measured from the
edge of the shared driveway easement.
10. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the owners, zoning district, TMP and present uses of all abutting parcels. At least one,
TMP 62G -01-A, is missing.
Rev1: Comment still valid. TMP 62G -01 -A is still not labeled. TMP 61 -158 appears to be mislabeled.
Final: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(b)] Clarify the acreage occupied by lots; the square footage information listed for each lot, in sum,
does not equal the total acreage provided in the "land areas" breakdown.
Rev1: Comment still valid. Areas provided in "land areas" breakdown still don't match those shown
on the plan.
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(b), 2.2.3, and 4.7] In order to qualify as a cluster development, a minimum of 25% open space that
meets the requirements listed in section 4.7 must be provided. Areas in paved parking, private alley and
emergency access do not meet this definition. Additionally, the dedicated right -of -way must be removed
from this area. Demonstrate that 25% open space is provided.
Revi: Comment still valid. The entire Open Space B is labeled as 0.20 acre. If the parking, alley,
emergency access, etc. have been removed from the open space that meets the definition for cluster
development there should be two different numbers provided; one for the entire open space parcel
and one for the area of open space that meets the definition. The boundaries of the area that meet
the definition for cluster development should also be identified.
Final: Comment not addressed. As indicated above, provide two open space numbers; one for the
entire open space parcel and one for the area of open space that meets the definition for cluster
development. The boundaries of the area that meet the definition for cluster development should
also be clearly identified.
13. [32.5.2(b) and 15.4.1] In order to qualify for the "Environmental Standards" bonus factor you must
demonstrate that the wooded area being preserved meets the definition of `wooded area' as provided in
section 3. A conservation plan and checklist must also be provided. List the area preserved on the Cover
Sheet.
Rev1: Comment still valid. A tree survey will be required; see the definition of "wooded area ". As
noted, a conservation plan and checklist will also be required.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. While a density bonus is no longer proposed on this site plan,
a portion of existing wooded area is preserved to meet the tree canopy requirement; see comments
below.
14. [32.5.2(b)] Provide information regarding where parking is provided on individual lots. If driveways will
provide the required parking, dimension all driveways to show two parking spaces are provided.
Revi : Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(f) & 14- 302(B)7] Revise the watershed note to indicate this parcel is not in a water supply
protection area.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(i) & 14- 302(A)6] Label and dimension the shared driveway serving lots 3 and 4. An access
easement will be required across lots 2 and 3.
Revi : Comment still valid. An access easement will also be needed on Lot 5.
Final: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(i)] Access aisles for 9' wide parking must be 24' in width. The alley is shown at 20' wide; either
widen the alley to 24' or widen the parking spaces to 10'.
Revi - Cnmment addressed.
18. [32.5.2(1) & 14- 302(A)6] Please clarify the extents of the relocated emergency access easement, it is
difficult to tell exactly where it's located and how far it extends into the proposed development. This
emergency access was a Planning Commission imposed requirement of the Dunlora 3A Rivercrest
subdivision. The Planning Commission will be notified of this relocation on their consent agenda.
Revi: Comment still valid. The easement location still isn't clear. Additionally, it will need to extend
to Belvedere Blvd to allow potential users access to the private alley for egress.
Final: Comment not addressed. The emergency access that was a planning commission imposed
requirement has been removed from the plan and replaced with an accessway that does not provide
access to Dunlora 3A. This application must provide the access regardless of the possibility of
Dunlora V providing the access as that plan may never be constructed. Show the emergency
access as it was shown on the approved Initial Site Plan. The Planning Commission will be notified
of this relocation on their consent agenda. If an alternate emergency access is later constructed, the
plan can be amended to remove this connection.
19. [32.5.2(1) & 14- 302(A)6] Clarify the extents of the alley easement; the label says 22' but it appears to
include the guest parking area.
Revi : Comment still valid. Easement lines still not clear.
Final: Comment addressed.
3
20. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the state route numbers for all existing streets.
Revi : Comment addressed.
21. [32.5.2(1)] All off -site easements are required to be in place prior to Final Site Plan approval.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment still valid. This includes the off -site sewer connection.
22. [32.5.2(i)] Clarify if an easement is needed on TMP 62F -313; it is noted that the existing driveway will tie in
to the widened emergency access, but no easement is shown.
Rev1: Comment still valid. Easement lines still not clear.
Final: Comment still valid; when the emergency access is added back to the plan, make sure all
easement lines are clear.
23. [32.5.2(i)] Show the existing pedestrian path easement along Shepherd's Ridge Drive with the appropriate
Deed Book and Page Number.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.2(i) and comment] The existing pedestrian network in Belvedere is a 10' wide asphalt multi -use path;
for consistency, the County requests that you provide a 10' path in lieu of the proposed 5' concrete
sidewalk. This will also require additional right -of -way dedication.
Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The area of dedication should be clearly shown. Additionally,
a portion of the proposed path appears to be off -site on TMP 62G -01 -A; this will require an easement
(both for construction and for future public access to the path).
Final: Comment not addressed. Clearly show the dedicated area and show an easement for
improvements shown on TMP 62G -01 -A.
25. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all existing easements for water, sewer and drainage facilities have been shown on
the plan, including the associated Deed Book and Page Number.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed.
26. [32.5.2(k)] Verify that all necessary easements for proposed water, sewer and drainage facilities have been
shown on the plan.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed; however, show all easements on the landscape plan to verify no
conflicts exist.
27. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location of any other existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including
telephone, cable, electric and gas.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed.
28. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Revi : Comment still valid; if the `buildable area' is the maximum building footprint, provide the
square footage of this area for each lot.
Final: Comment not addressed. Site Plan requirements include providing the maximum footprint of
all proposed buildings; if the `buildable area' is the maximum building footprint, provide the square
footage of this area for each lot.
29. [32.5.2(n)] Dimension all driveways, paths, access -ways, and the existing sidewalk.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
30. [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(e)] Bumper blocks are required where any parking lot abuts a sidewalk of less than 6';
provide bumper blocks or increase the width of the sidewalk next to the parking to 6'.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
31. [32.5.2(n)] Clarify the paving type proposed in the courtyard.
Revi : Comment addressed.
4
32. [32.5.2(n) & 32.7.2.3(b)] Please provide sidewalk connections from the proposed townhouses to the
sidewalks along Rio Road and Belvedere Blvd.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
33. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.4(a)] Many plants shown on the plan are not included in the Plant Legend; if any plants
are used to meet requirements of the ordinance, they must be included in a plant schedule.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Many plants shown on the site plan are not included in the
plant schedule, and the SWM plan is not part of a Site Plan submittal; if any plants are used to meet
requirements of the Site Plan ordinance, they must be included in the plant schedule.
34. [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.
Revi : Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. The conservation checklist requires that any area of trees to
remain that is within 40' of proposed building or grading shall be protected by fencing; since
existing trees are used to meet the tree canopy requirement, provide tree protection fencing (on the
landscape plan) along all remaining tree lines within 40' of proposed construction /grading.
35. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.4(d)] Provide notes verifying that the minimum landscaping and screening requirements
have been satisfied.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. List the street tree requirement and the number provided. List
the shrub requirement for parking visible from public streets.
36. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] Street trees are required along all existing streets; provide trees on the Rio Road
frontage.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
37. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.5] When a parking lot is located such that parked cars will be visible from a public street,
low shrubs should be planted to minimize the view of the parked cars. The parking lot will be visible from
Rio Road; the landscaping shown within the proposed dry swale may be sufficient but it isn't specified on
the plans. Demonstrate that this requirement has been satisfied.
Revi : Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Due to a change in the swale location from Initial Site Plan, low
shrubs should be provided a minimum 5' o.c. along the perimeter of the proposed parking.
38. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.6] A minimum of 5% of the paved parking and vehicle circulation area shall be
landscaped with trees and shrubs. Demonstrate that this requirement has been satisfied.
Rev1: Comment still valid; the 5% requirement refers to landscaped ground area, not tree canopy.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. The landscape notes list 11,500 SF of paved parking and
vehicular circulation, but the Cover Sheet lists 22,454 sf; revise the landscape note to use the
correct area. Additionally, the 5% requirement refers to landscaped ground area, not tree canopy.
39. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Parking areas of 4 or more spaces shall be screened from adjacent residential areas.
The landscaping proposed within the dry swale may provide sufficient screening for TMP 61 -164 but it isn't
specified on the plans. Demonstrate that this requirement has been satisfied.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
5
Final: Comment not fully addressed. To meet the ordinance requirement, a double staggered row of
evergreens must be provided. Some of the planting within the basin may help meet this
requirement, but the plants haven't been specified in the plant schedule.
40. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the majority of the tree canopy requirement is being met with existing
trees; see above for direction on how to verify and document preservation of existing trees. Provide a note
demonstrating that the 20% tree canopy requirement has been satisfied.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. The 20% tree canopy requirement is to meet the landscape
plan ordinance, not for bonus density. A Leyland cypress provides 23 sf of canopy, not 50; revise
the canopy calculations and demonstrate the 20% requirement is satisfied.
41. [32.5.2(r)] Provide a complete legend of symbols and abbreviations; among other things, some hatch
patterns are not included.
Revi : Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed.
42. [14- 302(A)3] Existing and platted streets. Provide the width of the ROW for Rio Road.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
43. [14- 302(A)4 &5] Private and public easements. As noted above, all easements should be clearly labeled
including DB and PG information.
Revi : Comment still valid. Easement lines should be clear and easy to identify.
Final: Comment still valid.
44. [14- 302(A)4] Private easements. Some of the proposed plantings appear to be on Lot 1; any required
landscaping located on what will eventually be individually held private property must be in an easement
and have a maintenance agreement.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed. Proposed landscape has been removed from private lots.
45. [14- 302(A)8] Proposed lots. Proposed lot lines are difficult to see; please clarify.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment addressed.
46. [14- 302(A)9] Building sites. Provide required building site note. Clarify the dashed lines (with fill) near the
townhouse footprints.
Revi : Comment addressed.
47. [14- 302(A)14] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved. Note the intended owner of the open space.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
48. [14- 302(A)15] Identification of all owners and certain interest holders. Provide the name and address of all
easement holders, including the emergency access easement.
Rev1: Comment still valid.
Final: Comment not fully addressed. Clarify the holder of the emergency access easement.
49. [14- 302(B)4] Places of burial. A portion of the cemetery is shown on TMP 62F -E1; please revise the note
on the cover sheet and indicate if an easement is in place. If no easement exists, one needs to be provided.
Rev1: Comment addressed.
50. [14 -317] Instrument evidencing maintenance. If the subdivision will contain one (1) or more improvements
that are not to be maintained by the county or any authority or other public agency, the subdivider shall
submit with the final plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of the improvement. This
should include maintenance responsibilities for the required landscaping throughout the project. The
instrument shall be submitted for review and approval, and must be recorded with the plat.
Revi : Comment still valid.
Final: Comment still valid; this instrument must be submitted with the subdivision application.
11
Final Plan:
51. [32.5.2(a)] Add a note indicating this is a cluster development.
52. [32.5.2(c)] If this is a phased development as indicated on the Cover Sheet, provide phase lines and
proposed timing of development.
53. [32.6.2(f)] Provide the radius of all curb returns and edge of pavement.
54. [32.6.2(h)] Provide a signature panel for signature by each member of the Site Review Committee.
55. [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all reviewers complete their reviews and grant their
approval. Engineering and ACSA comments have been provided. E911 and Inspections have competed
their reviews and have no objection. Fire Rescue and VDOT comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is
kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which
may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org.
Please contact Ellie Ray in the Planning Division by using eraygalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3432 for
further information.
7