Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201700103 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2017-08-17County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Robert W. Coleman, Jr., LS — Residential Surveying Services (c/o residentialsurveying(a,gmail.com) From: Tim Padalino, AICP (tpadalinogalbemarle.org) Division: Planning Date: August 17, 2017 Subject: UPDATED REVIEW COMMENTS for SUB20170103 — "Division and Boundary Adjustment Survey" (Ragland) In response to information exchanged during a phone conversation on August 15, the following updated review comments are provided (below, in boldface). The County will approve the plat referred to above when the following items 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.) This review was completed using the sections listed under Section 14-207 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff has provided references to the County Code preceding each comment. The Code is kept up-to-date by the County Attorney's office and may be found at www.albemarle.org/coqpVcode. Planning: [Requirements]: 1. [Chapter 14, Sections 14-400 and 14-403, and Chapter 18, Section 18-10.41: The plat is not acceptable with regards to minimum lot requirements ("Area and Bulk Regulations") or private street requirements. More specifically, a minimum of 250 feet of frontage on a public street or a minimum of 150 feet of frontage on an internal private street is required. However, the plat is not acceptable due to the following items: a. the configuration of proposed new "Parcel 3E" does not include sufficient (any) frontage on Burnley Station Road; and b. although the plat depicts and denotes the proposed new "Parcel 3E" as having the minimum 150 feet of frontage on the "New 25' Wide Access Easement," that proposed new easement does not satisfy the private street requirements — and therefore cannot be used to satisfy the minimum lot requirements. (Please see UPDATED Planning comment #2, and Planning comments #3 and #4, below) 2. [Chapter 14, Sections 14-403, 14-232, and 14-4341: The proposed "New 25' Wide Access Easement" is not acceptable. A private street is required. Private streets may be authorized in rural areas pursuant to Section 14-232. Depending on how vehicular access to and from Burnley Station Road is being proposed, the required private street may be subject to an Agent (Administrative) review and approval process pursuant to Section 14-232(B), or it may be subject to Planning Commission review and approval pursuant to Section 14-232(A). In order to ensure the accuracy of this review comment regarding applicable private street requirements, standards, and review procedures, Staff request clarification of details of the proposed access. Although the plat includes a note Page 1 of 4 that states "The New 25' Access Easement is for the right of ingress and egress for Parcel 3B and new Parcel 3E only," and although the configuration of the proposed access between proposed new "Parcel 3E" and Burnley Station Road appears to be direct, it is not clear how the existing gravel entrance and driveway (on Parcel 3D) will be accessible (or not), or if the existing gravel entrance and driveway will remain (or not). Therefore, please clarify the details involving the use of, and access to, the existing entrance (on Parcel 3D); and please also clarify whether or not the proposed new access will include the construction of a new entrance off of Burnley Station Road. Regardless, please note that a private street is required pursuant to Section 14-232 [either subsection (A) or (B)] and Section 14-234, and pursuant to additional Sections of County Code as identified in this review comment letter. UPDATE: You have clarified that a new entrance onto Burnley Station Road will be constructed on Parcel 3B in alignment with the new 30' private street, and that the existing gravel entrance and driveway on Parcel 3D will not be used. Therefore, please add the following note: "A new entrance will be constructed on Parcel 3B to replace the existing entrance on Parcel 3D." That note will help to clarify that the proposed new private street will serve two lots only — and will therefore be eligible for administrative review and may be authorized by the agent pursuant to 14-232(B)-2, as may be applicable. Also, please be aware that VDOT review and approval of the proposed new entrance on Parcel 3B is required prior to County approval of this plat. 3. [Chapter 14, Section 14-412(A)]: The proposed "New 25' Wide Access Easement" is not acceptable. The minimum width is thirty (30) feet. Additionally, as described in other Planning comments, the proposed new "Parcel 3E" must be served by a private street. 4. [Chapter 14, Section 14-306]: Please submit the private street information required to support authorization under the applicable requirements of Sections 14-232 and 14-234. 5. [Chapter 14, Sections 14-307 and 14-311]: Access to the proposed building site on the "Lot B" portion of proposed new "Parcel 3E" would require crossing of Sandy Branch. Therefore, you must submit the information required to show that the stream crossing would satisfy the requirements of Chapter 17, Section 17-604. (Please see Engineering comment #2.) UPDATE: In lieu of providing the information specified above, you may instead add the following note: "No structures, improvements, or activities will occur within the stream buffer or within the limits of the flood plain without prior County review and approval in compliance with County Code Chapter 17 (Water Protection Ordinance)." (Please see UPDATED Engineering comment #2.) 6. [Chapter 14, Section 14-302(A)-4]: Please clarify if the "10' Well Easement" on TMP22-3D, for the benefit of TMP 22-313, is existing or if it is being proposed. If this easement is being proposed, please remove it from this plat. 7. [Chapter 14, Sections 14-416]: Because proposed new "Parcel 3E" subdivision would be served by individual private wells or onsite sewage systems, or both, this plat must be reviewed and approved by the health director. To date, staff have not received approval from the Health Department (VDH). (Please see information in the Health Department section, below) UPDATE: County staff have received the required VDH approval letter (dated August 7, 2017). However, after speaking with Mr. Josh Kirtley of VDH, a significant issue has been identified: the August 7 VDH approval did not properly account for the specific requirements contained in County Code Section 4.2.2, as required and as specified in the VDH transmittal cover sheet. More specifically, County Code Section 18.4.2.2 requires the following: 4.2.2-W-1 "Dwellinje units"— Each building site for a dwelling unit shall have an area of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater ... [and] ... shall have adequate area for locating two (2) subsurface drainfields approved by the Virginia Department of Health if the lot will be served by a conventional onsite sewage system. Although the August 7 VDH approval confirms that the proposed new Parcel 3E has adequate area for two new drainfields overall (primary and reserve), neither of the two building sites [either "Lot (A)" or "Lot (B)"] contains two drainfields approved by VDH. Therefore, the plat is not acceptable without VDH review and approval that each building site shown on the plat contains adequate area for two subsurface drainfields. County staff recommends removing one building site from the plat, as it is not necessary for approval. Please note that including only one building site on this plat of division does not necessarily prevent a second dwelling unit from being built on a second building site on Parcel 3E in the future, subject to applicable County Code requirements at the time of any future request for any such building permit. Please coordinate directly with Mr. Kirtley to determine what documentation will be necessary in order for VDH to conduct the necessary review in accordance with the requirements of County Code 4.2.2-(a)-1. 8. [Chapter 18, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.21: Please specify the size(s) of the building site(s) on "Lot (A)" and "Lot (B)" within "New Lot 3E" to demonstrate compliance with "Building Site Area and Dimensions" requirements. [Requests/Suggestions]: 9. As currently depicted, the notes on Sheet 1 of 2 list both tax map parcels (Parcels 3D and 313), and then provide a list of numerous legal references. Please consider reorganizing the legal references so that they are clearly listed in connection with the applicable parcel, instead of being listed all together without any distinction as to which parcel the legal references specifically apply to. Engineering: 1. In RA zoned land, the stream buffer is 100' on each side of the stream or to the limits of the flood plain, whichever is wider. Please update the buffer on the plat. [ 17-600B] UPDATE: Please remove the "100"' language from the "Stream Buffer" labels. Also, within the hatched area labeled "100 Year Flood Zone," please remove the stream buffer linework because that is not the correct location of the stream buffer — the stream buffer extends out to the outer limits of the flood plain in this area. 2. Be aware that access to the rear of proposed new "Parcel 3E" will be subject to conditions found in section 17-604. UPDATE: Please add the following note: "No structures, improvements, or activities will occur within the stream buffer or within the limits of the flood plain without prior County review and approval in compliance with County Code Chapter 17 (Water Protection Ordinance)." Health Department: A copy of the plat (dated June 1, 2017) and copies of corresponding OSE/PE Reports for Subdivision Approval (both dated Jun 9, 2017) were transmitted to the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) on July 19, 2017. To date, County staff have not received a response. Staff will forward VDH review comments and/or approval(s) upon receipt. UPDATE: As noted above (please see UPDATED Planning comment #7), the plat is not acceptable without VDH review and approval that each building site shown on the plat contains adequate area for two subsurface drainfields. Please coordinate directly with Mr. Kirtley of VDH to determine what documentation will be necessary in order for VDH to conduct this necessary review in accordance with the requirements of County Code 4.2.2-(a)-1. VDOT: In the attached comment letter dated July 27, 2017, Mr. Adam J. Moore, P.E. (Area Land Use Engineer — Charlottesville Residency) indicated that VDOT has reviewed the plat and find it to be generally acceptable. Mr. Moore also noted that a VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. This would include, but not be limited to, the construction of a new entrance to/from SR 641. Please see the attached letter for details. Finally, please note that, in accord with the provisions of Section 14-229(B) of Chapter 14, if the subdivider fails to submit a revised plat to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter, then the application shall be deemed voluntarily withdrawn. And more generally, please contact Tim Padalino at 434-296-5832, ext. 3088 or tpadalino&albemarle.org for further information about any of the comments above. Thank you.