Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600007 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2016-06-01County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Justin Shimp (justinkshimp-en ing eering com) From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: June 1, 2016 Subject: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace — Final Site Plan Fax 434-972-4126 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 Initial Plan Approval: 1. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. Lot lines and a `private road' are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application, nor private road request, nor road plans have been submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval. Rev 1: Comment still relevant. Road plans and waivers have been submitted to the County. Pending review of road plan, processing and action on the waivers. 2. [4.6.1, 4.6.6, 32.7.2.1, 32.7.2.2, 32.5.2(m)] The private street serving the development is proposed within an existing publicly dedicated right-of-way, this is not approvable. VDOT never accepted the portion of the right-of-way labeled as `Unimproved Inglewood Drive' into the State Secondary System and the County still owns it. Either pursue vacation of the right of way pursuant to State Code 15.2-2272 prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval OR upgrade the existing roadway to meet current VDOT standards from the point where VDOT maintenance ends. This will include a suitable turn around at the end of state maintenance, removal of the existing parking area, continuation of curb and gutter, tie in of the existing driveway of TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400, and the dedication of right-of-way or easements as necessary. Please show these improvements and easements or right-of-way prior to final site plan and/ or subdivision plat approval. Rev 1: Comment not addressed. The applicant proposes the roadway be a private driveway maintained by the HOA within the public right-of-way that VDOT will not maintain. This is not acceptable and does not meet either of the two options discussed above. [Comment] Approval and recordation of a plat showing the vacation of the property line between TMP 61K-10-OA and TMP 61K-10-OA2 is required prior to final site plan approval. Include the deed book/page reference number on the final site plan. It may be appropriate to combine all platting items on a single plat (if other items exist). Rev 1: The applicant has submitted a boundary line vacation plat, SUB2016-3. Pending a resubmittal of this plat to address required changes. The plat shall be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval. 4. [Comment] VDOT approval of the proposed entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Rev 1: Pending VDOT review/approval. 5. [14-412(A)(3), 14-412(A)(3)(b) and 14-412(B)] VDOT road standards apply to the proposed private street. Show the 24' required width FC/FC on the final site plan. Final: The County Engineering may permit the width of the private streets to be 20' FC/FC per the design standards manual. 6. [32.5.2(i), 15.2.1(3, 14-233(B)1,14-234] A private street request must be submitted prior to final subdivision plat approval. This private street request can be reviewed administratively due to the presence of attached dwellings. A maintenance agreement for the private street must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the subdivision application. Rev 1: Item shall be addressed prior to final subdivision plat approval. 7. [32.7.2.2, 14-410(H), 14-4221 Private Streets in the Development Area. In the development areas, streets shall be constructed with curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. Sidewalks and planting strips shall be designed and constructed in compliance with section 14-422 (Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other vegetation shall be established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision creating lots for single family detached and single family attached dwellings in the development areas.) Revise to provide sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the new street. Otherwise submit variation or exception request pursuant to Section 14-422(F) & 14-203.1. This item shall be acted on prior to final subdivision plat and final site plan approval. Rev 1: Comment still relevant. Road plans and waivers have been submitted to the County. Pending review of road plan, processing and action on the waivers. Item shall be addressed prior to final site plan approval. 8. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.15(g)] Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways. Either provide the required curb and gutters in the parking area or submit a request and justification for a modification/waiver under Section 4.12.2(C) & (C)2. This is an agent approved waiver which can only be acted on after consultation with the County Engineer, who shall advise whether the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare. This item shall be acted on prior to final subdivision plat and final site plan approval. Rev 1: Comment not addressed. Provide the curb and gutter on the plans or request the waiver. Item shall be addressed prior to final site plan approval. 9. 132.5.2(b), 4.12.16(c)] Minimum parking space size. Are the 6'-wide parking spaces fronting Lots 4-9 for motorcycles/mopeds? If so, label the spaces as such. If not, on the plan label what they are being utilized for. These spaces shall not be counted towards the minimum required spaces. Final: Comment addressed. 10. [4.12.16(C)] The two proposed parking spaces fronting TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400 are required to be 18' in length. Currently they are depicted as 16' in length. Revise the final site plan accordingly. Final: Comment no longer relevant, plans were modified to omit these spaces. 11. [32.5.2(i)] Street trees shall be required for this development. Prior to final site plan approval a landscape plan shall be provided. Final: A landscape plan has been provided. Detailed landscape comments are provided below in "Additional Comments". 12. [32.5.2(i), 4.6.3,15.2.1(3), 15.3] Setbacks. The setbacks throughout the plan are not accurately depicted. This development is classified as "infill development" pursuant to Section 4.19 of the County Code. The correct setbacks for this development are as follows: Front Minimum — 30 foot Front Maximum — none Side Minimum & Maximum — none Rear Minimum - 20 foot Rear Maximum — none 2 Rev 1: Comment not addressed. The front setbacks for Lots 1 — 3 are incorrectiv deaicted. 13. [32.5.2(f)] Per the June 19, 2015 letter by David L. Powell, Environmental Specialist, which was submitted to staff on October 29, 2015, the stream feature has been categorized as an Intermittent Stream. The study was reviewed by County Engineering staff and has been determined to be adequate. An adjacent property owner has contacted staff and expressed his concerns with this study and has opted to contract a stream categorization study of his own by a licensed professional. At the time of this approval letter the second study has not been provided. When the study is submitted it shall be considered and reviewed by County Engineering staff. If the second study contradicts the June 19'h, 2015 study, the County Engineer will make a determination to classify the stream. Rev 1. On March 25, 2016 there was a stream determination conducted by WPO Program Authority for Stream Buffers. In the applicant response letter dated May 91h you state this issue is still ongoing and that you are awaiting results from the stream dispute. Has the Army Corp of Engineers agreed to classify the stream? 14. lsL.S.L(a), sl.5.l(t)1 l ne 9' retaining wa►► is acting as a clam Tor the stream that may cause T►ooctmg on neighboring properties in the event of heavy rainfall. Have any studies been conducted to assess the max flow of this stream to assure that the 60" storm sewer pipe is adequate to avoid such flooding? If so, please provide copies of the study to myself and Engineering. This item may pose an issue for the development during the WPO plan review of the project. Please work with Engineering staff to address this concern prior to final site plan approval. Also, the `New 60" HDPE Storm Sewer' discharges water into the existing swale on TMP 61 K-5-D-4. Will piping the water under the proposed buildings increase the velocity/flow of discharged water potentially increasing erosion on the neighboring property and/or impact properties downstream? During the WPO plan review and prior to final site plan approval please work with Engineering staff to address this concern. Rev 1: Plans have been revised to terrace the retaining wall into two separate 5' tall walls, and detention pipes. The WPO plan shall be approved prior to final site plan approval. The site plan shall reflect approved WPO. 15. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Screening. The proposed outfall of the stream shall be screened from the adjacent residential lots (TMP 06 1 KO-05-OD-00400& 061KO-09-00-003130). Provide the required screening on the final site plan's landscape plan. Rev 1: The outfall will contain rip -rap and open pipe is not proposed. Based on this design screening is not needed. 16. [32.5.2(a), 15.4.1, 3.1] Maintenance of existing wooded areas. For the undisturbed areas to qualify for a 10% density bonus, demonstrate in an exhibit that the area meets the definition of "Wooded Areas" per section 3.1 of the ordinance. Provide the exhibit and a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 prior to final site plan approval and/or final subdivision plat approval. Rev 1: Comment not addressed. Applicant plans to submit this information with next submittal. On the final subdivision plat, show the conservation area and provide the following note: "Lot acreages shown hereon were calculated under the Bonus Level Cluster development requirements. Lots shown hereon comply with section 15.4.1 "Environmental standards" by conserving acreage area that comprises of the total area of the subdivided parcels. " Final: Item shall be addressed prior to final subdivision plat approval. 17. 132.5.2(a), 15.4.3] Affordable housing. Clearly identify the affordable unit on the final subdivision plat. Final: Item shall be addressed prior to final subdivision plat approval. 18. [32.5.2(a), 15.5,15.3, 4.71 Cluster Development. On the plan clearly distinguish what area is being counted towards the required Open Space B & C, and omit the square footage for the road and parking from the open space totals. Rev 1: It appears this development truly only contains 25,837 SF of open space (A, B, C, and D) which is to be maintained by the HOA. The plans have been revised to provide open space within residential lots, specifically 6,466 SF; however, this is not permitted. Revise to omit the 6,466 SF from the open space calculations. On the final subdivision plat list who shall own and maintain the open space. An open space maintenance agreement approved by the County Attorney's office shall be required prior to final subdivision plat approval. Final: Shall be addressed on final subdivision plat. 19. [32.5.2(a), 15.5,15.3, 4.71 Cluster Development. On sheet C1, under Impervious Area Schedule, 33,500 SF is listed under "Area in open space"; however, on sheet C3 open space A-D add up to 27,676 SF. Correct and coordinate calculations throughout the plans. Rev 1: The plans have been revised to provide open space within residential lots, specifically 6,466 SF; however, this is not permitted, and this acreage shall not count towards the open space totals of the development. Revise the calculations on sheet 1 to only list open space that meets the definition of open space. Staff believes the true amount of open space for this development (A, B, C, and D) is 25,837 SF. Please confirm and revise the calculations on the plan. 20. [32.5.2(d)] Prior to final site plan approval provide a temporary grading and construction easement or license agreement for the installation of the proposed DI and New 15" HDPE Storm Sewer on TMP 061KO- 05-OC-01300. Also, revise the plan to provide this property owner's name and TMP. Final: Comment no longer relevant as there is no work proposed on adjoining neighbor's property; rather, the work will take place in the existing right-of-way. 21. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(n)] Dimensions. On the plan provide the dimensions of the proposed structures. Final: Comment addressed. 22. [Comment] On the plans provide the deed book page reference information for the existing 30' Joint Access Easement. Staff research determined that the maintenance agreement for this join access easement is D131654-291. Revise accordingly. Rev 1: Comment addressed. 23. [Comment] The adjacent property owner of TMP 061KO-10-00-OOOA1 has a portion of his existing driveway on land that is part of your development and property (TMP 061KO- 10-00-OOOA2). It appears that some grading is taking place on a portion of his driveway that is on your land. He has contacted County staff (Engineering and myself) and is very concerned with this aspect of the plans and does not want this to take place. It is recommended that you contact this citizen and try and work out this issue. I have his contact information and will provide it to you upon your request. Final: The developer has been made aware of this recommendation. 24. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval: - If lighting is proposed: Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17] Final: Comment addressed. No lighting proposed. - A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9]. Final: A landscape plan has been provided. Detailed landscape comments are provided below in "Additional Comments". Additional Comments 1. [32.7.2.2,14-410(H), 14-422] Streets and Travelways. Each private street and travelway within a development shall be designed and constructed to the standards for private streets in chapter 14. Provide curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the new private road and the public road. Otherwise submit the applicable variation or exception request pursuant to Sections 14-410(I) and 14-422(F) and 14-203.1 for consideration. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Road plans and waivers have been submitted to the County. Pending review of road plan, processing and action on the waivers. 2. [14-403, 14-412] Lot frontage. Private street easements shall be a minimum of 30' wide to provide frontage for 4 the proposed lots. Prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval revise the required easement. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 3. [Comment] Various pages throughout the site plan depict the existing asphalt parking fronting TMP 061KO-05- OD-00400 as remaining in the 50' public right-of-way; however, these spaces shall be removed unless VDOT approves their location on the road plan and is willing to maintain them. Rev 1. Comment not addressed. Pending VDOT review/ approval. 4. [32.5.2(i)] Streets. Label the proposed extension of Inglewood Drive as "Public Road". Rev 1. The portion of the roadway proposed within the existing 50' r/w dedication is labeled as public, however, the applicants comment response letter states it is to be a private driveway not to be maintained by VDOT. Assure the label of this roadway matches up with the applicant's proposal. A private road within the public right of way will not be approved. See comment #2 above. 5. 14.11.3, 4.11.4] Structures within easements. A portion of the rear deck for Lot 1 is within an existing 20' waterline easement. Either provide approval from the easement holder that the deck is permitted within the easement or revise the plan to take the deck completely out of the easement. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for these units? Depict the location, dimensions, and screening of a dumpster for use by the residents. If each lot is going to have it's own trash container for curbside pickup, where are these containers going to be stored when not in use? If stored behind the lots how are the middle units going to gain access over surrounding lots? Provide a note on the plan. Rev 1. Comment not addressed. 7. [32.7.9.4] Landscaping. Throughout the plan there are numerous conflicts between required landscaping and proposed/existing easements. - Four (4) Green Vase Zelkova street trees proposed within the 20' storm easement Rev 1. Not addressed. All four trees are still within the easement. - Three (3) Autumn Blaze Maple parking lot trees fronting Lots 7-9 proposed within 20' and 30' storm easements Rev 1. Comment partially addressed. One (1) Autumn Blaze Maple parking lot tree fronting Lot 9 is proposed within 20' storm easement. - Two (2) Green Vase Zelkova street trees fronting Lots 1 and 2 overtop of the sewer line connections Rev 1. Comment partially addressed. One (1) Green Vase Zelkova street tree fronting Lot 2 is still overtop of the sewer line connection. Either revise the location of the proposed easements to avoid conflict with proposed plantings or revise the planting locations. If the plantings are to remain provide written documentation from the easement holders that they are permitted. 8. [32.7.9.4] Landscaping. All required plantings located outside of the right-of-way on individual lots shall be within landscape easements which shall be depicted on the final subdivision plat and recorded with a maintenance agreement approved by the County. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Example: Four street trees depicted on lots 1 — 3. 9. [32.7.9.5(d)] Location and spacing of street trees. The site is short two (2) of the required street trees. Based on the prevalence of easements these two (2) trees shall be located in either open space areas onsite or in the rear yards of Lots 1 — 6 within an easement. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. The required street trees are incorrectly calculated. 10. [32.7.9.6(b)] Landscaping within parking area. Swap out the plantings fronting Lots 7-9 from large shade trees to shrubs. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 11. [32.7.9.7(3)] Screening. Provide a single row of evergreen screening (trees or shrubs) at the base of all retaining walls on Lots 2-6. This screening will help reduce the visual impacts of these walls on the neighboring property. 5 Rev 1. Comment addressed. 12. [32.7.9.5(c)] Minimum caliper of street trees. Correct the typographical error on sheet C6 under Required Street Tree from 1-1.5" to 1.5". Rev 1. Comment addressed. 13. [Design Standards Manual] For safety reasons provide a slightly opaque fence (minimum of 4' tall) atop the 5' retaining wall on Lot 2. Also, provide a typical detail. Provide guardrail or fencing atop the 9' tall retention wall adjacent to Lot 7. Rev 1. Comment partially addressed. Provide guardrail or fencing atop the 9' tall retention wall adiacent to Lot 7. Please label it. 14. [Comment] Revise the title of the plan from SDP2015-20 to SDP2016-7. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 15. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all approvals are granted from various reviewers. Those who have yet to approve the plan are Planning, ACSA, VDOT, Engineering, and E911. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. Additional Comments on Revision 16. [32.7.9.51 Street Trees. The revised measurement of road frontage (445 LF) is not correct and shall be revised to its previous measurement (765 LF). Assure you measure both sides of the existing and proposed street. Also revise the amount of required street trees. 17. [32.7.9.7] Screening. Evergreen trees for screening purposes shall be a minimum of 4' tall at the time of planting. In the landscape schedule provide their height at the time of planting. Staff has provided references to the County Code. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18, if the applicant fails to submit a revised plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter, then the application shall be deemed voluntarily withdrawn. Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Current Development at cperez@albemarle. org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3443 for further information. 0 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Christopher Perez, Planning From: Matt Wentland, Engineering Date: 26 May 2016 Subject: Inglewood Terrace (SDP201600007) The final site plan for Ingleside Terrace has been reviewed. The following concerns should be addressed; 1. Due to two conflicting stream studies, Staff requests that a third study be performed, either by a third party agreed upon by both the homeowners and the developer or by the US Army Corps of Engineers. This third study will determine whether or not a buffer will be placed on the parcels in question and on all parcels downstream of the site. Comment addressed. 2. Within the steep slopes overlay district, the maximum height of a single retaining wall is 6 feet [18- 30.7.5]. This plan proposes a 9' to 10' wall passing through an area designated as a managed slope. Please adjust. Note that the minimum horizontal distance between individual walls in a stepped wall system is 3 feet. Provide certified wall plans. Comment addressed. 3. The width of drainage easements should be calculated using the formula found in the Design Standards Manual (Easement Width = Pipe Diameter + 2' + 2(depth — 5') + 10'). Comment not addressed. The 20' drainage easement will not provide enough space to replace the larger and deeper pipes if the need arises. The easements should be expanded to the extent possible. The Service Authority will allow the drainage easement to overlap their easements as long as it doesn't go over the pipe itself. For example, this will allow the easement from B2-B3 to expand to 30' or more. 4. The minimum width for a private road easement is 30'. [Design Standards Manual] Comment addressed. 5. The minimum sight distance on a private road is 100' and the minimum K for a sag curve is 15. [Design Standards Manual] Comment addressed. 6. Verify that proper sight lines are provided at the parking on the inside of the curve on the private road. Comment addressed. 7. Show stationing on the road centerline on the plan view. Comment addressed. 8. Provide a barrier or guard rail at the end of the private road. Comment addressed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 9. VDOT normally requires a 45' radius for turnarounds on residential streets, but may not be required due to distance from intersection. Comment addressed. 10. The landscaping plan is showing trees planted inside the drainage easements directly over pipes. Comment addressed. 11. Provide plans for the retaining wall and verification that there is no issue with the wall and wall foundation being submerged during storm events. It appears the 100yr storm event overtops the wall and runs into the buildings and the neighboring property. Response noted. See VSMP comments. 12. Additional erosion control measures should be used below ST1 to ensure runoff does not enter the neighboring property. Demonstrate how ST 1 will function during construction. It appears that it will be filled in almost immediately when the storm system and fill slope are installed. Response noted. See VSMP comments. Comments for Final Site Plan (previously provided by Michelle Roberge and remain unaddressed on plans) 13. Retaining walls greater than 4' require railing. Comment addressed. 14. A separate road plan will need to be approved and bonded prior to the approval of a subdivision plat. Response noted. 15. VDOT approval is necessary for connection to public road and for improvements within their right- of-way. Comment addressed. 16. Show groundcover, not grass, for slopes greater than 3:1. Comment addressed. 17. A VSMP application shall be approved prior to the approval of the final site plan. Response noted. 18. Verify guardrails are not warranted under GRIT manual. Otherwise, please show. Comment addressed. file: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace FSP Engineering Comments 05-25-2016.doc Christopher Perez From: Alexander Morrison<amorrison@serviceauthority.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 9:04 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: RE: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace — Final Site Plan Chris, I was going to send out comments later today but I will include them in this e-mail. I received the plans late last week and had to take them to our Friday engineer's meeting before I could send out comments. My comments are as follows: • Construction Plan Review submittal to the ACSA is required. Submit 3 copies of the plan along with water and sewer date sheets to the ACSA, Attn: Michael Vieira, PE. • Retaining walls are proposed within 10' of the sewer main and sewer manholes. Revise the retaining walls accordingly. The ACSA's Inglewood Pressure Manipulation Project must be complete before approval is granted (to provide adequate fire flow). The applicant can contact me for more information since I am handling the project as an in- house CIP project. Alexander J. Morrison, P.E. Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116 (C) 434-981-5577 (F) 434-979-0698 From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 8:33 AM To: Alexander Morrison Subject: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace — Final Site Plan Alex, SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace — Final Site Plan When do you expect to have comments completed for the above ref plan? Thanks Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3443 Review Comments I-IrWITIM111,111TA Project Name: iglewootl Terrace - Final Dale Completed-riday, May 26, M16 Final Plat Reviewer: ludrew Slack _ oepadmeMoivsioNAgercy E911 _ Reviews CommeM; The applicant should contact this once with a list of three (3) proposed mi names for approval before the final plans are submillet!