HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600213 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2017-07-24COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Belvedere I113 — Road Plans
Project file number: SUB2016-00213
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [Scott@collins-Engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: Belvedere Station Land Trust
Date Received: 7/6/2017
Date of comments: /2017
We have reviewed the plans and have the following comments:
Engineering
1) [General] Approval of road plan contingent on approval of associated Master plan variances.
Rev 3 — Acknowledged.
2) [General] Areas with 3:1 slopes will need to have low maintenance (not grass) groundcover.
Specify this on the plans.
Rev 3 — Addressed.
3) [�neet it i ne Barnett and Shelton Street profiles reference an intersection with "Dukes Alley
which does not seem to exist elsewhere in road plans. Please clarify.
Rev 3 — Addressed.
4) [Sheet 14] Inlet 146 does not appear to be represented in the drainage description chart. Please
correct.
Rev 3 — Addressed.
E` [Sheet 19] Provide engineering detail for yard drain inlets.
Rev 3 — Addressed.
Planning (Paty Saternye)
[14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and
amenities (Table 4). It appears that the property line between Lot 160 and the
proposed open space at the corner of the Village Green does not match the lot
line shown in SUB2014-178, which was recorded in Deed Book 4583 Page 375.
Clarify whether a boundary line adjustment will be required and whether the
open space, as shown as the hatched area, is the size specified in the open
space chart on this road plan.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
2. [COD] Provide information and details on how the landscaping requirements for
the two open spaces on the corners next the Village Green, will be met. The
description of Block 4 green space, on page 12 of the C.O.D., specifies
"intensive landscape amenities" for these "edges".
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
The label "CA" does not have an entry in the plant schedule and the label "CC" in
the plant schedule does not appear to be placed anywhere within the corner open
spaces.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
• If the label "CA" is meant to be "CC" then the symbol representing them is not of
the correct scale. The canopy of the "redbud" is specified at 124 SF, which is
larger than any other canopy in the plant schedule, but the symbol representing
what may be "redbuds" is smaller than that used for the Yoshino Cherry trees.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
• If the label "CA" is not meant to be "CC" then update the plant schedule to
correctly show the proposed plants and quantities.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
• There are two area hatches shown in the corner open spaces by the village
green. However, no information is provided on what plant material the hatches
represent. Include information in the plant schedule or with labels that correctly
and fully describe the plants and/or groundcover that the two hatches represent.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
• There appear to be two benches in each of the two corner open spaces.
However, no note or label is provided that specify what the symbols represent.
Include notes and/or labels for the rectangles in the two corner open spaces
specifying what the rectangles represent.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
In the plant schedule no size is specified for the Nikko Blue French Hydrangeas.
Include the plant size for the hydrangeas in the plant schedule.
REV. 2: Comment not addressed. Provide plant size at time of planting on all plants in
all plant schedules. Both Nikko Blue French Hydrangea and Snowmound Spirea do not
have sizes specified. The plant size for the small pocket parks are necessary for
bonding purposes.
[COD] The format and extents of the content of the table provided on the cover
sheet for Belvedere Residential Densities does not match those shown on the
previous subdivision plats such as SUB2014-178. Revise the table to be the
same format as the two tables shown on Sheet No. V2 of SUB2014-178 but
updated to be current and include the proposed development. Both "Tables 1 &
2: Comparison with Approve Rezoning" should be provided and not combined
into one table with reduced content as shown on the current submission of the
Road Plan. The maximum number of residential lots in Block 7 does not match
those shown in the C.O.D. but a variation requested (#53) has been submitted
and is under review. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or
the road plan modified to match the residential densities specified in the
approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
There is a typographical error in the residential density chart for Block 5 under
"Actual to date. The maximum number of carriage units for Block 5 in Phase 2A-
1 should be 7 and not 12.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• Carriage units for Block 7 in the "Actual to Date" portion of the residential density
chart should be shown as they were in the previous chart, with Phase IIA-1 and
Phase IIA-2 in separate rows.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• The Block Total minimum and maximum for Block 7 in the "Actual to Date" portion
of the residential density chart should be 18 and not 23, since the 5 proposed lots
are not included in this area of the table.
REV. 2: Comment addressed (Block 9
• The Density for Block 7 in the "Actual to Date" portion of the residential density
chart should be 2.45 and not 2.87, since 1.4 acres and 5 proposed lots are not
included in this area of the table.
REV. 2: Comment addressed (Block 9).
• The "Total" portion at the bottom of the "Actual to Date" appears to have multiple
errors. The "Carriage House Units" "Maximum", the "Block Total" "Minimum" and
the "Block Total' "Maximum" all appear to incorrect and there is no value provided
for the "Density".
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• The proposed single family detached unit count for Block 4 in the "Belvedere
Phase IIB Proposed" portion of the residential density chart should be 19 and not
18 because of the added "Lot 48" in this revision of the road plan. This change
will also impact the total at the bottom of this column. Note additional comments
on 19 additional units in Block 4 not being allowed in the C.O.D.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The chart has been updated for the 19 units.
However, see other comments in reference to the 19 units being beyond the maximum
in the C.O.D. for Block 4. The modification to the chart, under "Approved Rezoning",
for the 19 units in Block 4 will not be correct unless variation request #53 is approved
for this change in the C.O.D.
• The "Total" "Maximum" value for Block 7 of the "Belvedere Phase IIB Proposed"
portion of the residential density chart does not appear to be correct. It appears
this number should be 39.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• The "Total" "Maximum" value at the bottom of the "Belvedere Phase IIB
Proposed" portion of the residential density chart does not appear to be correct.
This total should only include the proposed lot.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• If any of the comments do not appear to be correct contact the plan reviewer to
discuss.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• Once all of the comments area addressed above check and update all the values
within the "Total Platted/Proposed" portion of the chart, including the totals at the
bottom.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The "Total Platted/Proposed" for Block 7 has
not been updated to carry the changes through the chart. Revise the "Total', "Min."
and "Max." values in "Total Platted/Proposed" for Block 7 for each of "Phase 2A-1",
"Phase 2A-2" & "Phase 2B". The values for "Phase 2A-1" are missine. "Phase 2A-2"
are missine & "Phase 2B" are incorrect.
• Add a note below the density chart that states that the densities shown for blocks
7 and 9 are those specified in variation #53.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• Variation request #53 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the
submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the
requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be
approved.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 is under review and
awaiting resubmittal. Either the variation will have to be approved or the
road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved
C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved.
• [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] Provide a title for the last columns of the density cart.
Maybe "Remainder".
• [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] The "Total" "Min." in the "Remainder" portion of the chart
should be the following because they have met their minimum or the minimum was
zero:
o Block 1 = 0
o Block 2 = 0
• [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] It appears that Block 6 has not yet met the minimum
number of carriage house units. Please specify if there is still a remaining undeveloped
lot in Block 6.
• [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] Blocks 4 & 7 have a range of Carriage House Units that are
allowed. The minimums required for each of the blocks must be met. If you know
how many will be built then fill in the "remainder portion of the chart appropriately. If
it is uncertain at this time whether anv Carriage House Units above the minimum will
be built then for Blocks 4 & 7, in the "Remainder" portion of the chart, under
House Unit" "Max" and "Total" "Max" out "TBD"
• [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] For Block 8, in the "Remainder" portion of the chart, under
"Total" "Min" it should soecifv "42" and not "63" since the minimum for "SFA/TH" is
zero.
• [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] In the "Total Platted/Proposed" section of the chart, under
the "Total" "Max." column, the total at the very bottom is incorrect. It shows "702"
and it aaaears it should be "620".
[COD] This road plan exceeds the maximum approvable number of lots in Block
7; this plat brings the total number of Block 7 lots to 36. The COD maximum is
34. A variation request has been submitted for a modification in maximum
number of lots in Block 7. Until variation request #53 is approved or the road
plan is modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. this
road plan will not be approved.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 has been resubmitted and
is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan
modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan
will be approved.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 is under review and
awaitinq resubmission. Either the variation will have to be approved or the road
plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before
this road plan will be approved.
5. [14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and
amenities (Table 4). Provide a table that includes all of the information from
Table 4 Green Space Tabulation in the most recent Code of Development (As
Revised: July 22, 2014), as the `Approved with Rezoning', and that also specifies
what has already been provided & platted, what is proposed with Phase IIB, the
difference from the rezoning, and totals for all of Belvedere. Provide the deed
book and page number for the open spaces provide and platted. Refer to
SUB201400178 Belvedere Phase IIA-2 Final Subdivision Plat, Sheet No. V1, for
an example. The total Open Space number provided on the current submission
of the Road Plan does not match what is shown in the C.O.D. A variation
request (#54) has been submitted to modify Table 4 Green Space Tabulation
and is currently under review. Either the requested variation will need to be
approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the
approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• The "Platted" "Other Green Space" for block 9 is 0.43 ACs more than shown in
SUB2014-178. However, that appears to have been an oversite in the chart for
SUB2014-178, since an open space of that size does exist in Block 9A and the
area of 18,892 SF (0.43 AC) is shown in the plat recorded as Deed Book 3545
Page 1. Therefore this change is accepted. However, a note should be added
below the chart in the subdivision plan that specifies where that additional 0.43
AC came from.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. A note has been added. However,
edit the note to also include the mention of SUB2014-88, which is the
project number for the Phase IIA-1 recorded plat.
• Variation request #54 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the
submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match
the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be
able to be approved.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #54 is under
review and awaiting resubmission. Either the variation will have to be
approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in
the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved.
6. [Proffer 3.1] 25% open space proffer. The revised table for Green Space
Tabulations must show that the 25% open space proffer is being met.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
7. [14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and
amenities (Table 4). The conservation area shown on the Application Plan in
Block 9 is specified in the C.O.D. to be a minimum of 0.73 acres. A variation has
been requested (#54) that would modify the minimum required area. Either the
requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match
the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be
able to be approved.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
The 0.05 AC of "Open Space" in Block 9, next to "Lot 201" is designated on the
ZMA graphics as "Open Space/Conservation Area" and should be shown as such
within Table 4. However, it appears that the area is shown as "Other Green
Space" in both the "Proposed with Phase IIB" and "Proposed with Variation #54"
tables. Since it is specified as a conservation area in the ZMA graphics it should
be shown as such in the proposed variation and the proposed additions to the
green space with this road plan.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
Variation request #54 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the
submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match
the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be
able to be approved.
REV. 2: Comment not fully Addressed. Variation request #54 is under
review is awaiting resubmission. Either the submitted variation will have to
be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified
in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved.
[14-302(B)8 and COD] Yards. There are proposed lots in Block 9 are reduced
to less than 60' width, which do not meet the requirement of Block 9 for 60 + lot
widths (see the bottom of page 8 in the COD). A variation request (#55) has
been submitted for the widths of Block 9 lots but is still under review. Either the
submitted variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the
Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of
this road plan.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Variation request #55 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the
submitted variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road
Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road
plan.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #55 is under
review and awaiting resubmission. Either the variation will have to be
approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised
to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan.
• In the "Notes:" on the coversheet add a note that specifies Variation #55 and the
modification to minimum frontage in Block 9.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
[COD] A third section is required for Belvedere Blvd. Two different sections
have been provided for Belvedere Blvd. One of them is adjacent to the Village
Green and has a median. The other is farther away from the Village Green and
does not have a median. A third section will be required for the portion of the
Blvd that is beyond the border of the Neighborhood Model District (NMD)
because that portion of the Blvd must meet all standard street design standards,
such as 9' wide parallel parking spaces. This has also been specified in the
recent planning comments for SUB201600212 Belvedere Phase 4A — Road
Plans. Road sections approved with the ZMA and its variations do not apply to
areas beyond the NMD border.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has specified that a waiver
request will be submitted, under Section 4.12.2(c)(2), to allow 8' wide parallel
parking spaces in the portions of the roads that are not part of the NMD. No
waiver request has been received.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has submitted the waiver
reauest. Address the followina and then resubmit the waiver reauest:
• Resubmit the waiver request for the parallel parking request only. See
comment number 15 on why the request should not longer be paired with
the private alley request.
• In the waiver request either supply a separate exhibit or correctly state the
name, project number, date, revision date and page for the existing plan
submission that is being referenced as an exhibit for the request.
io. [COD] Revise the plan view and sectional street view of Belvedere Blvd, in the
portion of the road with a median, to match either the Street Standards in the
C.O.D. (page 33) or previously submitted variation request #57 that is currently
under review. A minimum planting strip of 6' is shown in both the C.O.D. and the
submitted variation request. A planting strip is not currently shown as being
provided in either the plan view or the section view of this portion of the Blvd on
the Road Plan. Also, note that either the submitted variation request will have to
be approved, or the road standards shown on the Road Plan will have to be
revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has resubmitted the variation request
#57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road
sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #57 is under review and
awaiting resubmission. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road
sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved.
>>. [COD] Revise Table 8 Road Standards. The table does not match either the
Street Standards in the C.O.D. (page 33) or previously submitted variation
request #57 that is currently under review. The table specifies that there will be
parking on both sides of Road H and I, although the road plan show and
variation #57 requests that there be parking only on one side of these streets.
Also, each of the rows for roads H and I should specify whether the standard is
for the West or East side of the Blvd. Note that either the submitted variation
request will have to be approved, or the road standards shown on the Road Plan
will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road
plan.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
• Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The
subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those
specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved.
REV. 2: Variation request #57 is under review and awaiting resubmission.
The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match
those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved.
• Road section for the portion of Belvedere Blvd that includes a median does not
match the road standards table on Sheet 1A or the recently resubmitted variation
request #57. However, it appears the section is correct and the two tables are
incorrect. The two tables do not show sufficient right of way width and do not
include the correct wording for the "Paved Width Minimum Fc-Fc". "Paved Width
Minimum Fc-Fc" for a road section that includes a median should be worded "27'
inbound and outbound".
REV. 2: Comment to be addressed with the variation resubmission and not
with this road plan.
12. [COD & SP2007-54] A variation request has been submitted (#57) that would if
approved reduce the onstreet parking in the neighborhood from what was specified in the
C.O.D. That variation request is currently under review. This road plan show parking on
only one side of the Roads H & I on the west side of Belvedere Blvd. Either that variation
request will have to be approved, or the Road Plans modified to match the C.O.D. (with
any modification required by VDOT, Engineering or Fire Rescue) prior to the approval of
this Road Plan. The C.O.D. provides parking on both sides of the road for Roads H & I
to the west of the Blvd. This plan also shows parking on only one side of Fowler Street.
In reference to the requested reduction in parking specified in variation request #57 keep
in mind the following: 1) SP2007-54 was approved with conditions for on -street parking to
support the SOCA facility proposed with that application. One of the conditions was to
provide street widths to accommodate on -street parking as approved by Engineering. 2)
The previously approved variations #16, 17 & 18 (approved on 9/17/09) for the
Neighborhood Center mentions that "...Part of the parking requirements may be satisfied
using on -street parking, if determined by the County as appropriate..." 3) There are also
significant parking needs for the residences within the neighborhood.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has resubmitted the variation request
#57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road
sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. Also, as part
of the variation resubmittal additional information appears to have been provided in
reference to at least some of the specified parking requirements listed in this comment.
That additional information is under review.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #57 is under review and
awaiting resubmission. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road
sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved.
13. [SP2007-54 condition of approval #6, 32.5.2(b),] Soccer field parking. The applicant
shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on -site parking
provided for the use, including on -site on -street parking, is adequate for the proposed
use. The Special Use Permit (SP) specifies that parking for the SOCA fields are to be
provided in their immediate area and the proposed SOCA fields are adjacent to the area
of this road plan. Therefore, any consideration of parking requirements on these streets,
and variation request #57 that is currently under review, must consider whether the
conditions of the SP will be met. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it
has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met.
REV. 1: Comment not addressed. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it
has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met. It appears
that
REV. 2: Comment not addressed. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved
until it has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be
met. It has been specified as part of the variation request #57 review that it be
shown how the SP parking requirements will be met.
14. [4.12] Parking. Depict, label, and dimension all on -street parking within Block 9, because
of utilities and driveways the number of parking spaces may be greatly reduced, in Block
4 and 7 as well as within the area beyond the NMD boundary. Visually representing the
parking spaces will aid in evaluating whether there will be sufficient parking despite the
fact that it is parking on only one side of all of the streets except the Blvd is proposed.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
15. [COD] The design and standards for the roads and alleys not within the NMD
area were not approved with ZMA2004-7. The extension of the private alley
beyond the NMD boundary requires approval since it is a type of "Private Street".
Private alleys can be approved by the agent administratively in the development
area if street frontage exists, or will be provided, for all lots to be served by the
alley (14-236 B.). Provide information that shows that no public agency,
including the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County of Albemarle,
will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide information on
whether this extension will be maintained by the Belvedere HOA. If not provide
information on who will be maintaining the road and provide the associated
maintenance agreements. Work with Planning, Engineering, and Fire/Rescue to
establish approvable alley widths and sections. The County Attorney's office will
be required to review and approve either the existing HOA documents or any
new documents that will be required for the maintenance of the private alleys
outside of the NMD area prior to the approval of this Road Plan.
REV. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the following:
• Provide the legal documentation that shows that alleys outside of the NMD
Belvedere area will be owned and maintained by the HOA, as specified in the
response to this comment. Ensure that before submission of the document that
all pertinent portions of the document are highlighted. All HOA and maintenance
agreements will be reviewed by the County Attorney's office.
REV. 2: Comment will be addressed prior to the final subdivision plat
approval rather than with the Road Plan.
• Submit the private street request for the alleys outside of the NMD boundary.
REV. 2: Comment addressed. The alleys in this very specific circumstance
can be approved administratively. They are not considered to be "private
streets" and do not follow that process.
16. [Proffer 5.1] Overlot grading plan proffer. The overlot grading plan proffer must
be satisfied for this phase prior to Final Plat approval. If the Road Plan is meant
to satisfy the requirement of the Overlot Grading proffer then provide the
locations of all driveways and building areas (5.1 (a)) in the Road Plan.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
17. [Proffer 5.1] Overlot grading plan proffer. The overlot grading proffer sections
5.1.(e) specifies that "Surface drainage may flow across up to three(3) lots
before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of
the lots. It appears that at least two sections of the proposed development (Lots
42 through 45 and Lots 202 through 208) do not meet this proffer. Revise the
storm drainage so that it meets Proffer 5.1(e).
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
is. [Comment] Adjust the text for Table 9 on the coversheet in the following ways:
a. Remove the text next to "Table 9 from Code of Development" that states
"No Changes Proposed" because there are changes shown to the table
as proposed with variation request # 56, which is currently under review.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
b. Update the variations listed above the table to include all those currently
shown on page 37 of the C.O.D. (revised date July 22, 2014).
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
c. Ensure that the table is correct through variation #43.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
d. Note that this Road Plan will not be approved until either Variation #56 is
approved or the setbacks and setback table is revised to match those in
the approved C.O.D.
REV. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Proposed variations have not yet
been approved. The variations have not been resubmitted since
comments were sent on January 19, 2017.
REV. 2: Comment not yet addressed. Proposed variations are under
review and awaiting resubmission.
e. Revise the notes, on the cover sheet, so that the addition of wording for
the proposed Variation #56 is listed as Note 7, not included in note 2, and
ensure that Note 7 is applied to the Side Setbacks and not the Front
Build -to from street.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Add wording to the note that
specified "for Block 4 (see note 7 below)".
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
19. [COD] Utilize a different hatch pattern for the "conservation" portions of the
Open Space areas shown on the plan.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The 0.05 AC open space adjacent to Lot
201 is supposed to be the "conservation area" type of open space, as shown on
Exhibit 2C of the ZMA exhibits. Revise the hatch and label for this open space to
specify that it is "conservation area" and not general open space.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
20. [14-302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Include in the labels for the roads and
alleys the letter designations shown in the Code of Development, and shown on
Exhibit 2C of the ZMA exhibits, in addition to street names for ease of review on
all sheets.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
21. [COD] Provide a section for Fowler Street (Road J) that meets all standard road
design guidelines including, but not limited to, 9' wide parallel parking spaces
because it is not part of the NMD area.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. In reference to Fowler Street (Road J) address
the following:
• The road section shows a 9' wide parallel parking space and an 11' wide drive
aisle. However, the response to comments states that a waiver to allow for a 8'
wide parallel parking space will be submitted. Revise the dimensions so that a 8'
wide parallel parking space and a 12' wide drive aisle.
REV. 2: Comment addressed. Applicant has specified they do not wish for a
waiver on the parallel parking width. Engineering has confirmed that the
width of the drive aisles meet the minimum required and the extra foot is
not needed.
• Applicant has specified that a waiver request will be submitted, under Section
4.12.2(c)(2), to allow 8' wide parallel parking spaces in the portions of the roads
that are not part of the NMD. No application for such a waiver has been received.
Submit the waiver request or revise the plan to show 9' wide parallel parking
spaces for Fowler Street (Road J).
REV. 2: Comment addressed. Applicant has specified they do not wish for a
waiver on the parallel parking width along Fowler Street and the parallel
parking spaces along the street are now shown as 9' wide.
• Revise the street section so that the trees are shown within the planting strip and
not in the sidewalk.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• Provide the road and alley letters, from the Code of Development exhibits, in the
labels for the street sections.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
22. [14-302(B)5] Zoning Classification. The variation dates should be updated to
reflect those most recently approved, including 10-3-2012 for variation #48.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
23. [14-302(B)5] Zoning Classification. Under "Zoning:" on the coversheet add block
9 to the "Note:" and revise the second sentence to state, "Any remaining portions
of Blocks 4 and 7 will be platted with Belvedere Phase 4A." or clarify why this
modification would not be correct.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
24. [4.6.6, 4.12.6 & 14-302(A)(4)] Lot Access Requirements; Private easements.
Provide a temporary grading & construction easement and deed of easement
over TMP 06200-00-00-016DO for the proposed grading depicted on the plan.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
25. 14-302(A)(5)] Public Easements. Provide the easement and deed of easement for the
water line that will extend into TMP 06200-00-00-016D0, just beyond the future
connector road next to Lot 201, that is depicted on the road plan. REV. 1: Comment
Addressed.
26. [C.O.D. & 32.7.9.5] Landscaping Along Streets. Revise the landscape plan on
Sheet No. 16 to provide the required street tree calculations to assure
compliance with the C.O.D. and ordinance. In the calculations provide the
amount of street frontage for all of the roads in the road plan and show that the
minimum distance between street trees has been met.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The notes on the landscaping sheet do
not appear to be complete and in some cases do not appear to be correct.
Address the following:
• In SUB2014-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans, on sheet 13, there are two
notes (not numbered) to the right of the "Minimum Planting Requirements" from
the Code of Development (COD) that are not shown on this road plan. Those
notes are required. Add them to the road plan. These notes are in reference to
yard planting requirements and are separate from those required for the street
trees.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The notes have been added.
However, within the wording of the 2nd note it is referring to the location of
the "Minimum Planting Requirements" chart on the same page. Since the
orientation of the notes to the chart are not same in this road plan it is
necessary to slightly edit the note. Change "to the left" to read instead
"above" in the note.
• Note #3 on sheet #16 of this submission is incorrect. appears that an effort was
made to merge two different notes from a previous road plan into one note.
However, those notes were addressing two different requirements. Refer to note
#3 on sheet #13 of SUB2014-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans for the correct
wording of this note. The street tree requirement is only 50' on center, not 40' on
center as the current version of the note specifies.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• At the end of Note #5, on sheet #16, tree pruning to the height of 6' at tree
maturity is specified. However, in a boxed note a few inches below the notes a
height of 8' is specified. These notes conflict with each other either must be
made to agree or one of them must be removed.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• There appears to be an opportunity for additional street tree in front of Lot 197, on
the southeast side of Farrow Drive, and at the northwest end (on the right) of
Fowler Street. There do not appear to be any limiting factors to placing trees in
these locations.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
• Provide at least one street tree label for each block and on each side of the
street. One label for all streets along the whole street, despite street
intersections, is not sufficient.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
27. [14-428] Dedication of streets. Provide the following note on the road plan: "All
proposed public R/W are hereby dedicated to Albemarle County for Public Use. "
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
28. [Comment] On the road plan provide the application number SUB2016-213.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
29. [Comment] Add a note to Sheet No. 16 that states "sight distance easements
are dedicated to public use and shall be kept clear of visual obstructions,
including but not limited to fences, structures, and landscaping".
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
30. [Comment] Provide stop signs at all intersections of alleys with roads/streets.
This includes the existing portion of Phillips Alley where the existing stop sign
may need to be relocation because of the proposed development.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Label the stop signs at Phillips Alley and
Shelton Street, Fowler Street and Farrow Street, Barnett Street and Belvedere
Blvd., Shelton Street and Belvedere Blvd., Cornelius Alley and Shelton Street,
Cornelius Alley and Farrow Street. Also, it appears that stop signs are needed at
Griffen Grove and Shelton Street as well as Shelton Street and Farrow Drive.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
31. [COD] Include both the minimum and maximum Front Build -to From Street lines
on all proposed lots. These can be represented as they were in the previously
approved Road Plan SUB 2012-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans.
REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum Front Build -To
From Street Lines for both road frontages on all corner lots. Lots 41, 42, 45, 46,
51, 52, 55, 56, and 202 are all corner lots that need the maximum Build -To From
Street Line also shown on the second frontage. Also, ensure that the text
masking does not block the visibility of the setback lines. There are some lots,
such as Lot 39, that very likely have the Build -To lines included but they are not
able to be seen because of the placement of the text boxes.
REV. 2: Comment addressed.
32. [Comment] For all street that are to have parking only on one side provide no
parking signs for the other side of the street.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
33. [COD] The proposed retain wall, near the back of Lots 197 & 198 is three feet
closer to the preservation area then shown in the approve Preliminary
Subdivision Plat (SUB2016-119). Either relocate the wall further from the
preservation area or demonstrate that the wall can be constructed without
affecting the preservation area.
REV. 1: Comment Addressed.
34. [NEW COMMENT — ZMA2004-71 Density. The addition of a single family detached
(SFD) lot in Block 4 increases the proposed SFD for the Road Plan to 19 units. 14 SFD
lots have previously been platted in Block 4. There is a maximum of 32 SFD for Block 4.
The proposed 19 units would create a total of 33 SFD units in Block 4 which is not
allowed within the C.O.D. Either reduce the number of proposed units back down to 18
or submit a variation request for a modification for the maximum number of lots in Block
4. Until a variation request is approved or the road plan is modified to meet the
requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. this road plan will not be approved.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. It is understood that the additional lot for
Block 4 will be incorporated with Variation request #53. The variation request will
have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified
in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved.
35. [NEW COMMENT — ZMA2004-71 Split zoning. The Lot labeled as "Lot 48" in this road
plan is shown as being a split zoned lot. Staff strongly recommends against creating split
zoned lots. It is recommended that the plan be modified to develop single zoned lots.
"Lot 48" is split zoned in such a way that any building site is split almost in half. Because
of this the plans and plat must demonstrate the proposed use, setbacks, and code of
development standards can be met in each of the two districts for the lot created. The
zoning, proposed use, and density data shown in the plans and plats must be updated to
include this information for this one split zoned lot.
REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Zoning has stated that the note provided
on the setbacks for Lot 48 appear to be appropriate. However, the note states that
the side setback is 5' while the setback lines are shown as 5' on one side and 3' on
the other. Revise the setback lines to match the wording of the note or discuss
with review planner if needed.
36. [NEW COMMENTI Revise the setbacks in the proposed Block 9 lots so that they are
appropriate for widths and depths for the specific lot widths. Note that "Lot 196" appears
to be over 60' in width while the other lots appear to be under 60' wide. Therefore they
will have different setbacks.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
37. fNEW COMMENTI Revise all street sections to ensure that the tree symbol is
shown within the planting strip and not within the sidewalk. Three of the road
sections in this submissions show trees in the wrong portion of the street section.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
38. [NEW COMMENTI Provide the road and alley letters, from the Code of Development
exhibits, in the labels for all of the street and alley sections.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
39. [NEW COMMENTI The Impervious areas section of the cover sheet appears to have a
math error. Correct this error.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
40. fNEW COMMENTI On the coversheet, in the lower left hand corner, Note 4
states that the landscaping is to be done on the final site plan. There will not be
any final site plan for these single family lots, and landscaping is not covered on
a final subdivision plat. Therefore this note is incorrect and needs to be
removed.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
41. [NEW COMMENTI The "Total Acreage:" of the site and the "Acreages: Lots:" on the
cover sheet have changed since the last submission. Clarify why both of the charts
changed.
REV. 2: Comment Addressed.
42. [NEW COMMENTI Revise the note in the upper right hand corner of Sheet No. 3
about the 6' maintenance easements to include lots 57 and 197 through 201. Add
a label and leaders in Block 9 to show that the easement applies to those lots,
since thev have 3' side setbacks.
43. [NEW COMMENTI Revise the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with
Variation #54" and "Platted" sections so that the 0.05 AC conservation area
adjacent to Lot 201 is shown in the "Open Space Block 9" row and not the "Block
9 Preservation Easement" row.
44. [NEW COMMENTI Once the open space chart for the variation requests is updated
to include the open space for Blocks 1 & 2 ensure that the information is include in
the open space chart for this road plan.
Fire and Rescue (Robbie Gilmer) — No Objection
1. No Objection
VDOT (Adam Moore) — No Objection
1. No Objection
Service Authority (Alexander Morrison)
Still under construction plan review. Approval will not be granted until dedication of Phase 2 is
complete. Will advise once approval is granted.
Sincerely,
Bobby Jocz
Civil Engineer I