Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600051 Staff Report 2006-10-31COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SDP 2006 — 51 The Staff: Bill Fritz Woodlands Final Site Plan Public Hearing: November 7, 2006 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: (not applicable) Owners: Woodlands of Charlottesville LLC Applicant: Woodlands of Charlottesville C/O Dovetail Companies LLC C/O Dovetail Companies Acreage: 24 acres Rezone from: (not applicable) Special Use Permit for: (not applicable) TMP: Tax Map 76 Parcels 46C, 46C2 and By -right use: High density residential 46C3 Location: East side of Sunset Avenue Extended [Route # 781 ] between I -64 and Redfields Road [Route #1270] Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers /Conditions: (not applicable) Proposal: 300 multi - family units Requested # of Dwelling Units: 300 DA (Development Area): Yes Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA (Rural Area): No Urban Density Character of Property: This is a wooded Use of Surrounding Properties: The parcel located south of I -64 on the east side of Redfields Subdivision is located directly to Sunset Avenue. the west and multi - family housing (Sherwood Manor) is located adjacent to the east. Multi- family housing is also located to the north of I -64 on Sunset Avenue. Factors Favorable: Meets requirements of Factors Unfavorable: None the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions STAFF PERSON: William D. Fritz, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION: January 10, 2006 SDP 2006 — 51 The Woodlands Final Site Plan PROPERTY OWNER: Woodlands of Charlottesville LLC C/O Dovetail Companies APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary site plan approval for 300 multi - family units on 24 acres zoned R -15, Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 46C, 46C2 and 46C3, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the east side of Sunset Avenue Extended [Route # 781 ] between I -64 and Redfields Road [Route #1270]. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density in Urban Area 5. CHARACTER OF AREA: This is a wooded parcel located south of I -64 on the east side of Sunset Avenue. The Redfields Subdivision is located directly to the west and multi - family housing (Sherwood Manor) is located adjacent to the east. Multi- family housing is also located to the north of I -64 on Sunset Avenue. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: On January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary site plan subject to conditions. (Attachment Q. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This area is shown as Urban Density in Urban Area 5. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: Typically, staff administratively reviews and approves final site plans. However, two conditions of the preliminary site plan approval require Planning Commission review of the final site plan: 9. Submittal of documentation signed by the owner and the President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners' Association evidencing an agreement between the parties addressing drainage, landscaping, screening and outdoor lighting issues within the Sherwood Manor Subdivision. 10. The final site plan shall come back before the Planning Commission Several conditions remain outstanding. The status of all the conditions is noted in Attachment C. It is the opinion of staff that the outstanding issues may be administratively approved. The primary issue before the Planning Commission is the impact on the abutting property. Attachment E is a letter from the Homeowners' Association supporting this request and stating in part "we have reached an agreement with Woodlands that addresses to our full satisfaction all of the concerns regarding drainage, screening, lighting and landscaping ". With the information received and included as Attachment E, these concerns have been addressed and staff can recommend approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 2 The Current Development Division shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: 1. Current Development Planner approval to include: a. Approval of Light Fixtures complying with Chapter 18, Section 4.17.3 of the County Code definition of "Full cutoff luminaire ". b. Approval of plat combining parcels and dedicating right of way for "proposed new road ". 2. Current Development Engineer approval to include: a. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. b. Stormwater Management Plan. 3. Albemarle County Service Authority Approval to include: a. Water and Sewer plans. 4. Architectural Review Board approval. 5. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans for "proposed new road" as a public road connecting existing Mountainwood Road to Sunset Avenue. 6. Approval of Road Names. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Preliminary Site Plan C. PC approval letter modified to show review status as of 10/19/06. D. PC minutes E. Sherwood Manor comments Albemarle County GIS-Web October 30, 2006 The Woodlands 76410.4-D \ \ -.4-7..., ..,--..- 7613,--09,..4 ..y.' W/4C7•,,,,„ ......._:,!,/ /q6Kar-14,41-'47 ,.,..---. N i(02444 f9:-04--45\ \ 76-24 , / / r ' 4.76R1- 1 4... A ,6R1-03-)50 \ i /XJ' •" ‘‘., _ .311"'t, - 6R1-. ,R1 0349 // .-' ,- , 1 .6116 .-46.,..W4/t.le-4- ' , • 76. ---01-200024:-': 1 tr F R1,- 3-41 & 7" --, 6R1,-03--.2776R1-03-8 , 4„, A°Ilt i• ,6411--03-24 4fiCfii;P411 L7 1-0 "- . --:,•-47 76-45 %, 1- „,.-- ,-,‘„,,..-:6k••,-.../W mi-/. / 76-46B /-'11 ,\VG'Zif::' "4•111741'''/--\\ 1176R1-01-1B .1' \,.., , ‘441i...,4 76R1-0 P:N6 48F, - t 41t41 - 8k4-91--17 76-4B.'etst,„„.,j \ti '-• is. t:4-----1---7,6-486 •7 ip-01-06-10 -7-----.., 780 riiiiii.., , , '\76R-03-4 76-46E 410 4 76p-01.s •-I.A4e.,,‘'''' / ‘77r1t.:02';‘1 t—' ' '"''s' • . -------___ 1 '''''. 4..... po• I76P-0 1-0G-1 11 v• `'‘'N,„/\,..,...„ /-*----/76-4- B ,‘.,. -7, ......<-': i 4. *,* 11-• ' \ II 5R-01-‘...-8 a a.a., '' / \1 # .,-1''' 7/6\ftit-b 814.14,0,.1'76-46C3 ;$4 1\„\ NO1 t'''6P-0 1 \ 76-46B /1 --------.. 4, 76-46C2 ',- N"•' ' ''' ,-,.,to' , /76e•-•1.12•°-16,./' , , ,- -1'3 76R-01- 111 ' :19 76P-01- PJ(--- ..N_ '47. 7-I, 1..r.,, `•<.,2, -4•4, \V,--1-4 kt,..-"A 76,,..,-•\?!c.-16 '47,4, 0-'Tht •" -1-1 76--521A1 — s, ,9R-03--A!.76001-;2-3•76R-tOth--29 ,......e../•0° -,/ 7, $ ./ \\„ ... ..e."4...\•et / f, I 'w76,1202--.:,-3•5V\7t,s.1°,,,i5:211-il9r•raR-471-3-1 I/ 11818/848/1 78,7,4481k 7.8-1, ' - ?C ... j 'I---4-61- / • It. A r . fr.,4etiii,S21;.-38 767:„„Crki=3 ;,076 4Frii,-°-,800 i' 4011447,,12:•:. 'if If 76R-02--36 i,ip•"--r _ 00., ....„... ‘„,, ,-. ,. ,b_.16D . ,,.76v7z1.1A+N7- . ; Aiwa .,;,,, /ipr,"4 ... , i..... 76-'47'+',/ ''7-6=74-5A-71 p 7611L04_.9 '76-498 6-46E'----... ---4/ 76-54 i 76-46A ,„,,,„ . , 76 B. 04--1 1 65 . v- 76=709A+ 76-46A -, a,. , ' MIZI. 76-46C1 76 5 76W134--1 3 911 •..• • 16-62 -776?23 /416:V K'-t- 'le Ar767---521./1— • ,, j - 9-54P of At 0 A El Tax Map Grid - 10 — Overview Roads -4°=--Ilt II VIII-1'.;11a 12IRMO 9 18 al 22 El Road Bridges '.., :--•-1 13 016 17 301.19,20,21..,..23 — Road Centerlines 41 Al". ,24a5.26 2728,29 .31'33 34•M .^ . . — Roads -‘ "lottoso it 38 39 40141142143,4445174-6 47 48 49 coil frikC;11°•‘‘?* '52 1534;4155 166457J58 59 50 51i62..64 66 66• `• Buildings - - 88'liaZilian 77 78 78 93 81 CI Driveways Geographic Data Services s341 as 95r7 ragati2 Ma L.--_ Parcels Room 227 .96 se ss coital ialoa34 iiis 106 Lakes and Reservoirs 401 McIntire Road 10716810910 111 I 114 115.116 Ponds Charlottesville,VA 22902 142 119 11'21113 124 Major Streams All data is provided for graphic representation only The 125 12612712929130C County of Albemarle expressly disclaims all warranties of any ' I t I ifi I Other Streams type,expressed or implied,including,but not limited to,any 132i133 135,136,137, warranty as to the accuracy of the data,merchantability,or 38-139-0713,i 1 fitness for a particular purpose. Aerial Imagery©2002 Commonwealth of Virginia-Maps are for internal use only Attachment A , ' '.t' i`ii.,. �,.`.•.•'.,t`�•'�w.. \i ti t t`t tt tJai S d 1 -•4• `P • ! 1 !'/j• A... �...,.•• r/1/ y J . ; ! F ,^`.•,.,,' ',.4 i I '�i :/ ri t r�r Et. .......„...,,.e ,f 11 I / r q 1,.�♦...�..1....1. } • ' ! to w`3t'•.�� ♦4 t,t` 1 ; '•iV'/.Fi I"...J.:), w• .}< :, .... .... ",:,...1........;;;;;'Ire t /,< •_a._/ F a•Nett • Ri �.`wt`„ s T'` • •p...; .., ' . , t ,1 `r WfJ ■ . ;-:: :j `r' .tra-.^+.«i`t• ,..,i;;;',,..-...,.:';:.- 'r.". 'Y a a':" .� ' /< • ,', ✓. _ ♦ a t -T�-^-- i', ' Fi• .._ P J --. ' ' . / ..,t,t, ( 3 i r' i,."1/ r' t ,•ti' `\4,'� / ■1 f;i+i/ ,;'�,,,>K"'♦m-� t'•.l, ♦ \fit`Ott ' P a Y..�.i...'P t i t !r f i) I i I r, / �'•�_.. `'\- t , ..` i ii">1; r,/, •< < ..-`..t..- I ♦ I f" ,+ ,.�•.• ,1‘,.,,,la ' aW r,I, 1, _ •.t ,„ , J ( f a r f J f'" , ♦` \t Ttit ' A t ���r d \i.'r"`� tl,�tir r r t I 1�r'it.......--___ r I•• ^' �t \t /^ ,' . /: ti:a'�'/'/' ti\t',, ,.. YJ �� ! J 'iil f / .., f .>-'::. .t, t■E t J ' at,ffar • ...,., ^. f /' i .,:'• ''•;, ,^_/ 1"\\\', t: 4\ Fi • �i ttil t•� 5 ,.. t r•,. t t,t l,,r f J/ a e(J t f ° ' \•tt'a, t / '• , t" S ::1 t 1 t ,4 ,' t ' ;e;c ( �; • !U E„rr r; i, '/f't i",--f '" '., ' t is ai �•,• t t ° ,., :x?;;•;#:a.:-::: \ :r I,; :r 1 e zftti`^ ..•..-•k i rf r: .t st��,rlt ; l ;r r <1I r„ t tt; .a'• �.+ s•� t. .,;;'Y'r:::: ^ ♦ aP/< -"3.-•_" f ra r: I i1 „IJ , t o l a f f ) 11 ' a,fJ „ \ t r, 7.t.., , i■1 i,,.! 1 1 1 t , ,P r l r P t I <\r ♦ it1 t it; .j:f"^ '�''. Y I ff' ,i f r, f 1 a r ;t r ` •rrr f, i': �`" f•: '- . r�";;•'� ,;:I i r;l t l �`.1 S f i , P''/ _..' t f t r„I„■ ■ , 'i/, /I' tt\tt • •••�•,:' 1•t\ . tt ' 9 '` h' :0 i1Jt eI f ` / r, l� t r,r l l i t i y l i t' l i i a t' - \"' . i t 1 F ` t 1 t .. ,.„ .:\\- \'"b :♦ IJ,l t/ l-E''„-'‘,1" �.._ w ,4 1 ,1 5 a ,, ,,, - \t I'~^ 'Y s t r '7` : l af,r'+l f f''; f 1 • t ti. . OA ^ iilr ril\'i t ii,:l' V J \ tt � vc`` i , Jrf r J} ,t t i l t i ° + ♦♦ J _" Mrs.itet\\ttttil' O 44+ t\ i/e, ,. i ' • f + T ' \ +} Itll.: rr E t i I;1't\`\;i 1 1 /' V'. • \°,\tar --1' -1'•••• r a r . - r tt T t §I II :::::1;r `�(///' \i rit,\ `/ t ' f 'It";11 Zt41,;,1" ♦*+'�TP \ ,\ tt' i —IJ~-- i tti r :`.. atf Fi:I , a�A".. :i,-----‘, ltlaii,it ,,,tat, `"p it°at �i''•.'' I a , i ., !t'. I t t r ^•.,_ y �b�.y\ lll`t\ttlt�ytt\•1'. / � ` �.� \ `,. 5`f iti 1,.." w "`'• 1 ',J' t I ';i � fJtER' J , ( alwr i`•r.-,,,„ l„ 1 ',\',t4\lttt♦\a\aitl \'' ttt'a».`'n ■`t '• it .. .♦\4tiff- .. �d14pJ \,' , ,Jr ", r',......Th.. /frf /1Jf ' Fa + �_ `,'•.... tt`t,t.\t iaattrtt\`. /• y xi.V ► / / - 1:_.i r`•� \ rlrtri ' J ' i `i\t�i,tttt,t��tf'tt, tl / �J '4 \,l tJ j a f.w J', MOOOSp rrOlMifMWOCb j 4Ji lJJ ■ 1 L.vt .�.♦s ti\.:,, `Fa3't, 4 // •k A O 1'1,,,': a ael7.r, ... mp nsean°"Dagt*rtrme m i li 1 `\.....^r.i. t ,tilir/�iiiti i (r■ ii cs ��, xi ` IN ° ♦ :,k i ;:t 1 ~r✓.• ':Lrr;raf,Pralrr f a Tj . ••• D ik I ` J t 004 .r^fir^ eJ':a,r Ff"r,,r,it. 1\ ,� A r!' t�;\ 4.-' /•,r J r a,rilt�irrrf',5�, i ' • O q sd ■ #` 1/�i; ,i, r ;`' r., ,rf , � - ig 1 J i 4 7-f y .!'ti'+,r;J�1E1 '1'i+� v o yry �� 1 , 1� . t,t r s1', --i II ill,l! li{lrtt \`1,1x y , V r r E S.1`' l I'•-"1`-Y ,tit , f.ift lilt♦t tt t. -R � r t rE1` f , g �a .., 1 sir litw`ittt\t•tt+;♦• .2 x I Ig> RR"' s XRR 'R �r rrli J</' : ,i '..,,_„r^yJ!' � rwi`i•t\'tit.t\ ♦.\\'l ll t• `♦♦`♦ ♦♦ .`.. 4•- �{. t 1 � S Su ST � fu �Rr ; , ft.\ IpfltrJ' tl• 'V +I .`,`,`, ♦ wM `\`mot` \ T� < � . •: ,.' �. ♦•. % �' - � a 3`A �ii�' iiia�a"�'1..�.:` -Rr t � ' J+ • ;3.%�___.,- • a t,i \s`5't s.sty,``'+•".:' . ♦4 ,j <, U yap .1111..., i r t ,•i yii i }" () ~ i ; , t ,.+`4,,♦ '.t :::`:^ ` �,ia° ' ® l i'js�' " ; ;, ' ; j i i��, t` '! ! I f i t t '..-e.`�:.:ai'.»\ttitfc♦ <"tT Iru& gt1j' ``.. tt\ it • v t � li. ;JA• ' g• ,~ •i + • :\• I . l• ! ` t t J' J*'bi �,.•I atirrP <:.....<..a. :......,.,_�1m..-_-...-......_._.. ;r,-, irr :� ♦ ' �^ r-" ■■ c I a/ '' - •i) i v PJ rr'J rbf4 if ♦ ,• -'li •'� ♦ ^ �.•.. _ �r � V [ � R � s .1 � ,il• a / , p prn! rtrf Jar';'Fe./.,,< � � _• I �R I• ��((,#■ '/ti ,�'• e„�'� ;. ;t. I 1 ar eft' r,....ii"i':itiflae / �ff''`. . .„r'~~ � �� i I R ��°!.a• e • �1fir B• fu(�{ i;i; i; j 'J'•,..`t , tr7,:, . 'i< /,,`,'-,"' ` I "RJ < r[j J r uat:tii;° ;ilt'ltr '/i/ri/�',',.w'w' ' ..' J'•r w ~�_ '�r ��NF � 2� I �gr i 'I � �Ri <rl[�r rat , '•s.....-i. :.'�t;:;;f�l>ii,�lt� 'i'rs ,+",' . /' ' I ■ o ,�.� •. i�nt^ rat ' f P , , t f,i 4 11 r 1{i•i ;,{r I (r,l ; , n'!f• * ♦ fiI tt Yp`` ; tY' •.''.'`.+/„+,'at• .�..• .....e`"'"lr' .., �',�_1„i�i,.tii,ti, f'tl t/ /t , —' . y- i t ��11" ,, ...frt11 ,11, ,JJ !,f la E' , ti ' < tE JR_ ! tt4tit I f ,1.\il,lt,,. iift ill, //-W 1 1 t r . r t ©� ,_ Y i , r ,1a1..t t a t l t 1f i st tt i .li ,iti ftl,iti s y r r � _ I an ' 1. T i }'^ •"I , f'4•/ i ',• Iitf1111 !''iiit . 4 1 �Qr 'I •, �, t'tt{41ft) itiF.! li [ ! t a♦ ' i\ �4�t .� aET'Sa i { .`\ttla\,tiiJt'lir 33ir.ii,4 . tf �l«h .\ ♦*�"• t Id' „ � � f j` { J/ L i :i fill,), ��.-.-_..,.....--._����--..... t\1tt\ ti.11 j�ij t,.l�ti � `t t\ , •``. �.. ♦ \t • rf ' . i '1` ,..L... ;t ii�(ij 1 t taal i 4\t'1 5 r ti.t ♦ , -...y . \'\, S , , al, IAM `'" . ."a t ,''L ..T..s.ii. yyr IJtJf 1 :'. \ 'i tat`ttas tt,i,c, „l .\'',,t.••;.: .. i:,�`M1♦ ." t`tt ♦ `, . 77 �. T' la ; W i .,1. ;,,,, 7 jj t`.':att tt si tt rt i t\ - „ \ ;\\• .'�', {1-- 1 �. .. � � . � ��*,.' , Utrt ` J \\r 1t1\\f jlil\'ii..\\i,ttt• it `^,,'w ` t t t' R R R r i f 1 i! , iltJ i i 'a . ♦ \ -_' \� .•. . \�. 1 R R f itd � ,� r;: ; �,;;:: i 4 �a\,.\t�0A',\\ti ,�``t\`�;ry ``�0- _::::.�e_ \ wt♦ sX: , a.. a.. Ra.. ag, F:$•. 17 �$' fa M:i ; r(•, t -Ir_•l+ ,.�j ti\s,at tttt i • .`�w ` t. :L lit S p' i;� 1 t i1 t'\'`^-�.r Kli. fir. iaat ..`\ ! `+ _................................................................. t trl ' t♦ t , \ .` .a .._ . tt i \ t y is ai • d't•`t-``I,'",y,� +',1♦ _ • '+�\/ -, ..;',,:i....,,`'w `i\,'N., 4r.I4j a d,. 'I F qb--if: tr r t ` i .„_ .Co.`„+'s"`.fi • F.:''i:,/ _.� st Tii t - 3• .-f -�Cjt�., IY '".:a. i 1 t t _'-,__ _ `..2,.``..,..,,,;`..-^^ ▪ • „• /r •• _- J+4't�:,. t,,t m, k , -R 'R 'F -R 1$s gpi -> f tt-± !..�' 9 • .t _ _ -- T3i�'>" : 4 • P ` O 'till , r �--..-..“--,,i,...-"'_-- •, J\ �/r fir, �•�,t e is e. -- ��t/�/ ♦• 7 - P2t I ,-v.-. 1 :u t J J' i,, ?[^",,tea..• f •S" � r{,�J s�r t If 1 .F a{gL" II i fly? • a .,,:......- ..- iii ,`;a• 1<♦ 4J,,' ♦ • »- - 1<,eJP 1 .o ,° 3 ®d ft I Pt ' _, 1 ,'•a•„, pi .*' r�_-�—~_ r• r r ggfrii ' rr • +' •• - tw,' ; i ,I i� 1 S t+‘ , , r yf, ins-.>K..__•'-. �/-�-�.. ?;�^.ae.�wWr=���w.' a, r i;♦ /'/'i• rP' t ./<• I inm 1 .. 1 r rri` 't fJ t a _ifM' , ".^...� • w -_ t i �t , < F / •, 'R.,. R M d t r r a ! T° i x g i „ r' ') ' }e, i ...,.,, rg-'azi-._- - ��,...r - r/Jr r /,fa;r , .4 1 • 1R-. =R .1_$L �/ i I: •_le.. I a. a ar r D: J '• :: i i "^-.,,,-.,r1`l7� ti.�.n�_..2.` y ,e'Ji,,... _ */, fF',l /'/ r '� Loll,® '� ..- Q I —. q + trl y. .tJ r . a 1 ! .\ '-•\',` '/ , ;."J,a I,/'//I t / , '/• .w +���m f;S ; Ai i I M r FT®� J' ' r J : .'`---!---1. y,•,. '..-. , -- .s♦,'.``M1-'' �f'fri: i/l,' / aa+t- . y .+ s•®•li A'y:. sil ,' ';1 , i4,-,4, e i I ill ;, i i 1 f t'. . , 41 T-T + • 1 l l- .si 1 , Ja 'I Ot 1 `+{ .... /f r , J . E e I }tl. ♦ t g t y �I'Q.il� ....So 4 I<' / Pt - J t t f - r t �7S L�r —- r �Y(tf� /fy „ 1 pw." I ( -R "R Re F; rV t I a' aim pg. .. ' ytiii .rry` y1 I '/�.R E. 6_T•' ':�. - r r '\�i`t.\•t...r+r i;‘, ,t`.. ```•y, _. - µ =--.. ,,•,\1\ / ►� ,1 �.D og...I wF . a ,•• t,r� - a ' `,t "__ _" „!_ \,� 1 �E �1 /J Or •+ I r \ -§- !II! - - ILL ?I R'• •I .};j y ' , ` , � 'F ti i � ?a ,..;,si ..;,1----;--' \ ; I /it s\ ®a ..,• , T• �'�• w!• , 14t. t j ,•.•\',/ i,'`/ i 4 ®j IR., i i ,. ,iR.. 11'4 AR ;•-' i c r">$.. 1=;; �` ram•• ... •y„; ' • . .♦ f' 1p ,~~' ...• //',/ 1 ii •, t �6 1 FE F$ F•4 1:1 Fe Fo 1 : ', to L -ti+.by •.. • 144 Cie b i l lf't'< MN Z• i t r / a P r a �'=`t.• hill • � ® IliI A a` / ~:``,v,4,',,^,` �' •,.` s\ s r t f r 1 i a^°f.... Irm 1 f 4i , M "`"` : :,Q+` `...`3- ` •ice^:,.♦', ,r it4t! r a' I '- I a tt_ r.T..I4/ `c, I — :'ice" .•w*`.::..., �•""�/* � � `� "\, r —111 `..�M :: ".^ �.ta 4, •. �5 - •i .mas -4▪^ • �i'� ':Z R � 1 illti.‘i t �t t ,\;ti l -". z...zi, ♦• > ♦ �,4i .14,7 $! d '1!f ■ii wY att •.`r.. t e T •t --`\1v•..:.�♦`,,yiw``.^41'+� +;� ��t•1��„�:',a } 4•:., ° '1 trf .. ♦,. t 'y,."`�;•..�w`.: .�w� �`w Y r � l <f f r, 'Ill :I)4Ji i • i .\' \ ^ `",-`'w.'.?.`►` ♦ w,,,"Vgw•,"~` , 1 ♦ �i`.. i "t t t : ,� # S i r 3 r 3r3 /'t 14� `'^ ^th ♦r.�...h..w.„•`,'•±�.^.� ``�•,w" .i`w-:, i„:11.,..., J f t ii e 'S t i,r ,tt ,I t`,I . `` - - ''a, ,`•,-,,.....-,::.:..., '�.` \a^ �,,„:„ • :;J`+`"z`ti^:+:.,y r \t . i i t J�rir� i i i,1 t r:I i i:, , i j„ i `•y ' g Y ..__. `'+..� � "`� .i�� ��!: f i i tr it,. ' a` �'a fr t 1 J: : , t •"�^..,...,,..'.,........'•, I +`,` ,,',`;„•� ay/,/ i fr " i4.'•1' ', ti:;!Jr' ;; , i 'r..^........... ... .r a 6 \ \' ^ ♦ `-'�` �� • ,^.2:'..^:.„•.�±�4Z� ^: r...r,r 1 i ' '', . , i Jlrri;;i'J 1 :J't ( . ., ...+ I f� i ~•} '.\ :C: " .`.'.. �`k�`.. ' . J , ` ''r '/ rf r' i if tr.7..,,.,,.,,.M1 x �* ♦• '•,,,h," 'a f/t J <i/.f t III lyl' i.�: ♦ P • 4� ~ ^„y•Z.`;ti`.^• •.°•~e ia;„``, �,a 1 f ,/',r:+ t/t r'r f t t tf t 'a t _II- .". ~ ~ ^.b.Y v..,^♦she +^ - t � t/frJt( frra r rl�� y}t," ,_ 1..1.f et �� ,- »_ \t``_ t ;�` " „ < r/ ' l/ / //t f, ,'. Jtl , /f .I Atk ..... -^••-�p.-''i. FF.r i • • .�• ...-"'."., t. ';!ice±".�"/ J' ' ♦ '/ f f t 'f a// a 1, 4. r..I -..\� i Y pi:'' r ! ♦ /<' /P `Jr J ;r ; ,:<,'I, a :I �,i 4���..•�. -.1� Via`.. •.,'' ` »', :,*;1;:.'•.w.•♦.``, `",�,.,wb". ..r '''t/ trl , ! 1 1: !f r'1,/0 I wra. .I ;; 1 '..,'r���� r' - ` . :•'‘'...''',..''''''''' ,• ±A*''' : nt -^ i a`\ `'i�..:`,: � 1 f r' i 1 1 i f fii J/} ili • I F' i' .rr' µ._"_..-__- "^- 4' `'..y.. i\ `w = "+.�:'.`„^ f a )/ t <erjl,Jltia 1 iti' t.--- �1.1 „- '�iM � t' i� 4`. -�� ,/I/,t r '+ii' � 1 ` 'x 5._ __._.�._.�_.�._-_.. f W • •♦` `�:Cw '• J ff/ a l ;t t i t7`i"...•,.... - ... ..•�� ^� �- tat! / tt 9 • �1`. +"�,� `w`a` '.♦ r•J F , f. i 1 Yl i;t 1\ t•;I, 1 �f............."�`...... „.o •♦• :-. /rri : tit ,i r ,.1.,.,- ..,. R `• 4 `~. Y'` • :.^ 44.Z ,,ti_ -• _ ,; 1 a' ii`ss I ,f ,.,.,..p ' __. '. Tr='_._.—_..._.- 8 p 3 t §8 s II $q C3 THE WOODLANDS Y�' I"`. !a i 1 :1 a t i 61g m Count of Albemarle,Virginia % £ §a$s$ y � o m 4 E n • w a _ MASTER PLAN "aa• is�< i i i a 1119 ik l lm "10, O Attachment C LL Og AL� -1- LJRG11ytiA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4012 January 20, 2006 Todd Gordon The Cox Company 220 East High Street Charlottesville. VA 22903 RE: SDP 2005 -123 The Woodlands - Tax Map 76 Parcels 46C, 46C2 and 46C3 Dear Mr. Gordon: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 10, 2006, unanimously approved the above -noted petition. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The Current Development Division shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Current Development Planner approval to include: a. Landscape Plan to include conservation plan and provision of fifteen (15) percent tree canopy. Approved as of 10119106 b. Lighting Plan. Not approved. See comments dated 10118106 c. Provision of a sidewalk on the north side of "proposed new road" connecting to the internal sidewalk opposite the clubhouse. Approved as of 10119106 d. Provision of a sidewalk extending from the end of the north side of the existing Mountainwood Road connecting to the internal sidewalk to the clubhouse. Approved as of 10119106 e. Approval of plat combining parcels and dedicating right of way for "proposed new road ". Not approved as of 10118106. Plat is currently under review. 2. Current Development Engineer approval to include: f. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Not approved. See comments dated 7126106. Plan submitted to address the comments is currently under review. . 0 g. Stormwater Management Plan. Not approved. See comments dated 7126106. Plan submitted to address the comments is currently under review. 3. Albemarle County Building Official approval to include: h. Design of all retaining walls of over 4 feet in height. Approved as of 616106. i. Design and location of barriers located at the top of all walls of 4 feet in height or greater. Approved as of 616106. 4. Albemarle County Service Authority Approval to include: j. Water and Sewer plans. Not approved. No comments received by Current Development from the ACSA as of 10119106.. 5. Fire and Rescue Division approval to include: k. Adequacy of fire flow. Approved as of 617106. 1. Location of Fire Hydrants. Approved as of 617106. 6. Architectural Review Board approval. Not approved. See comments dated July 11, 2006 7. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans for "proposed new road" as a public road connecting existing Mountainwood Road to Sunset Avenue. Not approved. See comments dated July 5, 2006 8. Approval of Road Names. Not approved. See comments dated May 25, 2006. 9. Submittal of documentation signed by the owner and the President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowner's Association evidencing an agreement between the parties addressing drainage, landscaping, screening and outdoor lighting issues within the Sherwood Manor Subdivision. Not approved. 10. The final site plan shall come back before the Planning Commission. Pending. The approval of the preliminary plat is valid for one (1) year in accordance with Subdivision Ordinance Section 14- 22 LA. Therefore, the preliminary approval shall expire on January 10, 2007. If the preliminary plat approval expires, a new application must be filed and processed. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296 -5832. Sincerely, William D. Fritz, AICP Chief of Current Development WDF /aer Cc: Woodlands of Charlottesville LLC Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Attachment D SDP 2005 -123 The Woodlands: Request for preliminary site plan approval for 303 multi- family condominium units on 24 acres zoned R -16, Residential_ The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcels 46C, 4602 and 4603 is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on east side of Sunset Avenue Extended [Route # 761] between 1 -64 and Redfields Road_ The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density in Urban Area 5. (Bill Fritz) Mr_ Fritz summarized the staff report. This is an application for a preliminary site plan for a 294 multi - family residential development_ It is located on the east side of Sunset Avenue Extended between 1 -64 and Redfields Development. Mountainwsood Road will be extended. Many years ago there was a plat recorded that had a reservation of an extension of the road which came through approximately in this location. VDOT has approved this as an acceptable alignment_ This item has been reviewed by the Site Reviews Committee and can be approved administratively subject to the approval by the Planning Commission of a modification to allow disturbance of critical slopes_ The item also has been appealed by abutting property owners in this area. The critical slopes on the property are shown in light gray, which includes various isolated bands in the recreational area, the recreational -open space areas and a small area along Sunset Avenue. The Architectural Review Board has also reviewed this request_ They have some concerns about the design of the site and the visibility from 1 -64. which is an Entrance Corridor District. They have some concerns about the location of retaining walls_ lights, layout of parking, building designs and the like. It cannot be said that the presence of critical slopes or the development of critical slopes is in any way significantly impacting the visibility on 1 -64. It is the overall development of the site. Even if the applicant did not develop on these critical slopes they would still have those kinds of concerns because of topographical relief to the property. Critical slopes are shown in the Comprehensive Plan on the inventory map, but they are net shown on the Composite Map. It is the Composite Map that they use to determine whether or not there are significant resources on the property. It is staffs opinion that these slopes do not represent a critical resource based on the Open Space Plan. There was a discussion about the difference in the road here versus in this oth er area_ It impacts very minor critical slopes. Staffs recommendation is that either of these two alignments is no greater or lesser on impact on critical slopes. It is negligible either war_ So there is no difference in the road alignment either way_ if this request for critical slopes were denied it would result in either a lower density on the property or a significantly altered design of the property_ It is unknown what that design would be and unknown what the potential impacts might be on the Entrance Corridor District. Our analysis of the critical slopes recommendation is that the technical requirements, runoff, siltation and things like that can be adequately addressed_ The findings on the other critical slopes waiver have resulted in mixed findings. Overall, staff is recommending approval of the site plan. • Staff would like to note that there is one condition. which was a mistake on his part th at needs to be modified, which is condition 1d. There is no existing sidewalk on Mountain wood Road. So the condition should be changed to read, -Provision of a sidewalk extending from the end of the north side of the existing Mountain wood Road connecting to the internal sidewalk to the club house_" In essence, it would extend from the existing sidewalk_ He had picked this up as being a sidewalk and it was, in fact, a concrete ditch_ i1 Ms. Joseph asked if the applicant was proposing a sidewalk along the new road, and Mr. Fritz replied that was condition 1e_ Mr. Edgerton asked staff to highlight the retaining walls. Mr. Fritz stated that the darker lines on the plan are the retaining walls_ He pointed out that at the highest point the retaining walls were about 20 feet tall_ There are retaining walJs that run almost the whole length on Sunset. There is also a tier wall in another location. Landscaping is being required along any retaining walls taller than 6 feet tall to the adjacent road or development. Landscaping is not being required along the interior retaining walls_ Mr. Strucko asked how extensive is the critical slopes disturbance and how it impact of the design and layout of this development. Mr. Fritz stated that if they would develop this property without modification of critical slopes they would not be able to grade or disturb at all on critical slopes_ It would effectively make this area very difficult to do any sort of development on_ It would also render other portions of the site where they would not be able to do any development on_ The road would have to be changed_ It is unknown if they would be able to get any density at all on portions of the site. They would be looking at a much different unit design than this. They would probably be looking at structured parking and taller buildings if they were trying to achieve the same density. The concern there if they were trying to do higher building that they would have a potential greater impact on I -64_ It may be inconsistent with the character of the area with the single- family development with the multi- family around it_ But. it is of a different scale. This is more in keeping with the scale of residential development here_ The taller buildings wouId be very different_ Ms. Higgins stated that staff did make the statement that this was not represented on the resources plan as far as the critical slopes that are important on the overall plan_ Mr. Fritz stated that it was on the inventory map, but it is not on the composite map_ It is the composite map that staff uses to determine whether it is a significant resource. Mr. Edgerton asked how the height of the buildings_ Mr. Fritz stated that the buildings are 45 feet in some locations. One thing that has resulted from that increased height is that there are increased setbacks from the adjacent properties in a number of locations. He pointed out staff's recommendation was that the critical slopes are not identified as a significant resource in the open space plan_ He noted that there are critical slopes located on the open space on this property and recreation is one of the things located in the areas of critical slopes_ As shown on the plan there is a small stage that is impacted by critical slopes as well as some trails. Therefore, critical slopes are impacting the open space. Ms. Joseph asked if there were any flat areas on the site. Mr_ Fritz stated that the applicant would be grading the entire site. It is a difficult site. It is not a flat site and is going to require some significant grading in order to achieve this density. It is about 12 to 12'/2 units per acre_ It is on property zoned R -15. Bo it is in keeping with the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area. Mr. Edgerton asked if the site was wooded_ Mr. Fritz replied that the entire site was wooded_ Mr. Btrucko asked if the critical slope issue impact the relocation of that road_ Mr. Fritz stated no, that critical slopes are really not an issue with th e road design. The real issue behind the road design was th e location of the entrance gates to provide security for th e community. 7 Ms. Higgins stated that there -was also a big difference in elevation to make the grades work at that location_ Mr. Fritz stated that it may be more dif icuIt to get the road down here. It may require substantially more grading. Ms. Higgins noted that in other words it was less grading to put the road there, and Mr. Fritz agreed that it probably would, but that staff did not do the analysis that way. Their primary purpose was just to move over so that they could have a more controlled entrance into their own development_ Ms. Higgins stated that one of staff's conditions has to do with ARB approval. She asked if the ARB has seen this plan_ Mr. Fritz noted that the ARB has seen this request in a work session and provided comments_ The applicant is trying to address the ARB's comments. He talked with their landscape architect and he is trying to do some work to address some of the ARB's comments. The applicant still has to go back to the ARB to get their Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Higgins asked if the ARB had reviewed this in regards to the critical slopes waiver_ Mr. Fritz stated that the ARB did not speak directly to the critical slopes_ Bust, disturbance or non - disturbance of critical slopes in this case does not have a substantial impact on its visibility. It is going to have visibility from 1 -64 whether the} disturb the critical slopes or not_ Ms. ,Joseph asked if there were any other questions for Mr_ Fritz. There being none, she opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Frank Cox, of the Cox Company, stated that they were representing Dovetail Development_ an Athens, Georgia firm that purchased this property over the past year. They have engaged the Cox Company to do the site engineering and urban planning for the project_ The owner's project manager, Bob Landers, is here as is Valerie Long, who is the real estate attorney for the project- He commented that they have reviewed the staff report and have had discussions with Mr. Fritz about the conditions of approval_ They find those acceptable. They are willing to abide by them_ After their meeting with the Architectural Review Board two weeks ago, they offered a number of very positive suggestions relative to reducing the retaining walls within the site quarters from Interstate 64_ They are well on their way to solving those issues by developing some dual walls and doing some additional grading work that will help reduce the impact of those. Relative to the extensive of Matt wood Road, there is quite a bit of history to that. The alignment on the plat of acquisition for this property was established many, many years ago when the owner of the property had the notion that it should be divided into two or three parcels. He felt that the County in its wisdom made sure that there was a reservation line agreed to on that property that would allow for the extension of Matt wood through the property. Unfortunately, relative to the concept that they are presenting the line did not work_ They were forced to take an already existing extremely difficult piece of land and chopping up into three separate tracts. The purpose of this project is one that is intended to be a gated community. It is going to be entirely a for sale product_ The density of 12.5 units an acre allows for us to do a type of townhouse residential unit that will be marketed exclusively to University of Virginia students and graduate students_ This is a project that has been tested and proven in a number of university communities around the country, including two at the University of Georgia and one at Princeton University. One is now going in at the University of Texas in Austin. This firm has a great track record. They have worked with a lot of organizations that do residential development_ Having visited their projects he could attest to the fact that they do landscaping better than any residential developer that they have worked with_ In fact. they sold him on it because his son bought one of their units_ The actual architectural representation can be seen at woodlandsp_athens.com. They are moving ahead with some work Frith the Architectural Review Board. They think that they satisfy them. They are happy with that. Relative to the issue of critical slopes, there is always going to be attention in the urban area between critical slopes on properties that came before you and some of the principles that were promulgated with the advancement of the Neighborhood Model and the adoption of many of the DISC principles_ The tension exists because within the urban there is just not much left to develop that is not extremely difficult_ The real bread basket of this property in the vicinity of the clubhouse and the major recreation areas is that the areas that contains the majority of the project's critical slopes the slopes as they exist now are covered with cracked up pine trees and are highly eroded. They are proposing to feather those slopes out as they grade the property and to bring in new landscaping to try to treat that area in a way that it can be revitalized from an environmental standpoint to reduce the grade of the critical slopes. Also, they would bring in some recreational amenities that will have some value to the overall community_ So they believe that the disturbance of the critical slope when measured against some of the design principles that they were trying to achieve that followed on to the goals and recommendations for traditional neighborhood development kind of ran head long into each other and compromises is what resulted. They have tried ten different alternative plans for this project- This is the one that they arrived at- Although it is not totally satisfactory to the developer, the density is 12 -5 units per acre. Zoning permits 16 units per acre. The Area B plan that is going to be before the Commission in the coming months is recommending a density of '16 to 24 units per acre in this area- This is one of two properties that are left to do something with- The existing zoning is one that we struggled with because they could not get the density that the developer wanted to achieve, but at the same time they had certain desires to do the best that they could by the land that they have- He pointed out that homeowners from Sherwood Manor were here and they were going to have some real interesting things to say. He pointed out that their group had met with their homeowner's association president on several occasions with their homeowner property manager and on one occasion with their Board of Directors. Sherwood Manor has some engineering deficiencies. In the downstream area right immediately below their property directly to the east is a drainage nightmare- It was not designed properly in the first place- Over the last month they worked with the property manager and the homeowner association's president- They have developed a schematic plan that would introduce drainage structures behind some of the units that are experiencing soggy backyards and actually some basement and lower level flooding- Ms. Joseph asked if these were off site improvements that they were suggesting Mr. Cox stated that these would be off site improvements- They just got the cost estimate on it this week - There is about $220,000 worth of work that the owners of the Dovetail Development, owners of the Woodlands, are willing to do at their sole expense- There would be no expense to the Sherwood Manor property owners to improve the down stream drainage situation. As mentioned. he does have a concept plan for that. It was not presented as a park of this preliminary plan packet because that issue was not on the table at the time that this was submitted- They have gotten the homeowner's association president and a member of the HOA Board together today with the owner of the project who pledged to work with them over the coming months to make those down stream improvements and to try to take a pretty rough situation that is there now and improve it. Our client is certainly willing to make any approval of the final site plan conditioned upon a satisfactory solution to the drainage situation, which should be a major concern of the Sherwood Manor property owners- Ms. Joseph asked if any Commissioner had any questions for Mr- Cox - Mr. Edgerton asked if any analysis been performed on the potential traffic impact that this project will have on Sunset coming into the city. Mr. Cox stated that the Area B Study has quite a volume on traffic. Four years ago they did a regional traffic impact analysis in conjunction with a CPA on the Granger property, which was withdrawn. The extension of Matt wood is going to be helpful to the cause. Ultimately, Sunset is going to have to be expanded. The plans for Area B call for the extension of Sunset through to Fontaine for an alignment that runs along the northerly pro perty line of the Granger property. Ms. Joseph pointed out that the proposal is a by right development, and Mr. Cox agreed- Mr. Craddock asked if the units were for sale and what was the price range. Mr. Cox stated that the units would be for sale at 5200 -000 and below based on what the owner had told him. Mr. Stru cko asked if they had looked at the utility services for this new development and how that would impact the existing neighborhoods- He asked if there was adequate water flow. 7 Mr. Cox noted that there was adequate water supply and adequate sewer capacity. They are working with the Sherwood Manor property owners to acquire an easement of a couple hundred feet for the extension of the sanitary sewer through their property. They chatted with the Service Authority and they are geared up to work with us to make sure that easement can be implemented. Ms. Joseph stated that Mr_ Cox had stated that the recreational amenities will be available to the entire community. Mr. Cox replied that it would be for the self contained community. They have agreed to work with the Sherwood Manor folks in the area where they have some of their recreational amenities to do some enhanced landscaping and screening on their property to hopefully sway any concerns that they might have as far as views into our property_ Our land is 30 to 40 feet up the hill elevation wise from their most highly situated home_ Ms. Joseph invited comment from other persons present that wanted to speak regarding the request. She asked that the first person on the sign up. sheet, Gary Leavel, to come forward and address the Commission. Cary Leavel, board member of the Sherwood Homeowner's Association, stated that they have had several meetings with Mr. Cox. They had one meeting with Mr_ Landers of Dovetail. Mr_ Fritz has been very helpful in keeping them up to speed about what is going on_ As far as communications, they have been getting along very well_ Some of the items that were mentioned before he would say again and some others following will probably repeat some of it, but if you have ever been to Sherwood Manor off of Old Lynchburg Road you know that you keep going uphill until you hit the top of the ridge. On the other side you go down to Redfields. So they have always had water problems coming down off of Scarborough Place rolling off of the hill. Therefore, they were very concerned about storm water and storm water management. In their meeting today with Mr_ Cox and Mr_ Landers they indicated their great concern about that and have worked on some alternative plans to help solve that basic fear that they have. Even in the report that came from the Planning Commission, it said that there was a sufficient increase in the water flow off of that ridge_ But, others behind him will tell the Commission basically the same thing_ Every time there is a big storm they see water problems. Their biggest concern about this project is the storm water and storm water management_ The second concern is the visual impact or the aesthetic resources_ The report talks about the resources from 1 -64 and how it looks from I-a4_ Of course_ they are concerned about how it looks from their neighborhood. If you look at it from Scarborough Place they know they will be seeing a lot of building. They hope that over a period of time that landscaping plans will be able to cover that up to the best that it possibly can_ The third concern is the lighting along the southern edge with the parking lots_ All of this is above their properties_ He questioned whether these lights would be toned down enough so that even around the recreational areas that these lights will not be seen very much at night. Elizabeth Poarch, resident of Sherwood Manor, stated that she wanted to address her concerns regarding the proposed development The Woodlands on the hill side adjacent to her home. Hopefully, you are aware that Sherwood Manor was built approximately 33 years ago. As far as she was aware the drawings provided by the developer do not provide the true sense of the impact of this project on the adjacent downhill properties in Sherwood Manor_ The back property line points a dagger at the heart of Sherwood Manor. But, since the drawings provided to you contain an outline of the Manor gro unds the full impact is not obvious. She asked that the Commission give careful consideration to the following in reviewing this plan_ Sherwood Manor properties already suffer from the considerable runoff during rain storms_ She has had to install drainage at the front of her home to repair water damage and rot of the foundation caused by water run off experienced down Scarborough Place. Her new concern is in regards to the two stream beds which carry the run off from both the east and west sides of the pro perty lines of the Woodland_ One stream flows directly behind my home at 132 Scarborough. The second stream connects with it. Both streams flow into the storm sewers. The connection is just below my property_ She has open space beside me. The house below me is where the two come together. She did not see those streams on the plans and was concerned that her neighbors belay me would be inundated during a heavy storm_ Para theoretically she remembers seeing Azalea Park below es completely under water and is very aware of the flooding problems of the properties adjacent to Moore's Creek. Hopefully this issue 10 will be dealt with an extremely cautious manner. In your packet she also noted the letter to Todd Gordon of the Cox Company dated December 29 from Brent Nelson_ Landscape Planner, Planning Commission_ It is littered with references toward protection of the Entrance Corridor along Interstate 64. There are no notes related to the impact of the lighting and landscape development on the wooded hillsides, which will be in full view from the homes in Sherwood Manor. Surely our viescapes are as important as that along an interstate highway- Roma Marling, member of the Homeowner's Association Board, stated that they met with Mr_ Cox this afternoon_ She asked to reiterate what Mr. Leavel and the report says about our extreme concern on the run off situation and the aesthetic views that they now have of that slope, which will be destroyedi_ We have been in discussion as of this afternoon and are very optimistic that it will all work out to the betterment of all of us involved. The other issue_ which has been mentioned, is the traffic. So basically those are the three issues that she is presenting again_ Steve Koleszar stated that his main concern is the storm water run off. The thing tfiat particularly concerns him is that currently the run off from that area goes towards Redfields. It goes to the southern part and there are several different areas that storm water run off takes place_ His understanding from the plan is that they are going to take all of the additional water from the nonperrious surfaces and pct it into this pond. So there is going to be a whole lot more water going into that pond and eventually coming down on just the one side that currently comes down bath sides of that hill_ His understanding is that requirement is that pond only is built to withstand a ten year flood. He was very concerned if they have a 25- }rear, 50 -year flood or 100 -year flood that the homes in Sherwood Manor directly below that pond, which includes his home, will get washed away_ His biggest concern is that pond or the drainage be able to withstand an eventual flood that will happen in this area whether it happens in 10, 25 or 100 years. Kathy Cassidy_ member of the Board of Redfields Association, stated that there were several Board members present that would like to speak to the Commission_ They have several concerns about this project. First_ on a larger scale there has been a lot of development in our area and there is no master plan in place for it. They have had Eagles Landings built at the end of Sunset Avenue Extended in the last two years as well as Jefferson Ridge_ These were also designed for graduate students_ Eagles Landings has not sold very well_ In fact, they have been really bending over backwards to get those units sold and filled_ They have had to go to rental_ So personally she did not believe that this is as marketable as the developer would think. Therefore. she was very concern ed about that they are going to build this entire project and then it is not going to be sold and then will change character entirely_ Redfields currently has 431 units. She did not know the amount of units on Eagles Landings and ,Jefferson Ridge. But. she would guess about 200 units each. She did not know the amount of units on the Meadows- The Woodlands would have 300 units. Then there is potential for further development in Redfields. That would total 1,531 units feeding onto Sunset Avenue Extended, which is already a very unsafe road_ They are currently experiencing at our entrance, which is just to the left of the proposed entrance of this project, poor visibility. There is a rise in the road and the graduate students tend to drive very fast. Then there is a very steep pitch down to a three way stop, which has accidents on it every winter due to icing conditions. It is quite unsafe. There are no plans that she has seen for improving this for this kind of added units on that road. It just seems to be very unsafe. They are quite concerned about that. They are also concerned about hour all of this affects school districts_ She did not see any plans in the master plan for that. That is not to mention if Biscuit Run get developed with 2.500 units_ The} have aesthetic concerns about his project_ First. visually they will see it from our neighborhood_ The} have two entrances onto Sunset Avenue_ Many of our homes the way the land slopes will overlook these homes. There will be a lot of asphalt and lights_ If these units are 45 feet high they are already quite a bit higher than their homes. So she did not see where this matches the character that is present there at all_ Also, they are already experiencing increased noise from 1 -64 from other developments. This looks like not a tree would be left standing to buffer noise. Eric Frantzen stated that he was also on the Redfields Berard. The concerns that he wanted to raise had already been raised. But, he just wanted to reiterate them to demonstrate his feelings on the subject. He felt that there is going to be an aesthetic impact here and it was going to be an eyesore from 1 -64. As Mr. Leavel mentioned from Sherwood Manor and thought also from Redfields they have 45 foot buildings on top of 20 foot retaining walls_ He felt that it would be a monumental eyesore on top of our mountain_ There were mixed reviews. In the review he read Mr_ Fritz said that with the significant development it 11 would open up a lot of engineering type of concerns. But, his main concern is the infrastructure_ He felt that the roads, even though they are going to build that other road, is going to change the density in the area and is going to be a major impact on Sunset Avenue_ Sunset Avenue was a ruraJ road for a long time and he did not think it was made to support that kind of traffic. There is a three way stop down at the bottom. Last year there was an accident there that blocked traffic to all of those developments. He questioned how emergency vehicles could get to those areas during accident. He felt that there was going to be a problem with the water_ There have been problems in Redfields with water pressure, especially during the drought. He definitely was sympathetic to the Sherwood Manor residents who are worried about the drainage problems. He felt that was a significant issue in that area. Bandy Lambert, President of Redfields Board of Directors, stated that they came tonight to learn and to express feelings_ He was very definitely glad that he lived upstream from this development and not dowrnstream. The thing that caught there eye was the language about the 20 foot retaining walls and the appearance from 1 -64. The question was what else might be the visual impact. He hoped that there would be adequate screening and landscaping between Sunset Avenue_ He sees a road that takes some of the load off of Sunset Avenue, but it is a subject of some soreness because its protected improvements are pretty far down the road and any transportation planning. Eventually that road will go through to Fontaine Avenue if they can come up with enough money to figure out haw to get there. There is a lot going on here_ He was in agreement with the development of the urban ring and was pleased to live in Redfields, but have learned that some of the things that get approved on a piece of paper turn out to be long term problems for the property owners. He pointed out that they have some very steep banks that were approved with waivers in some cases so that they could be steeper. They will probably have to pay to maintain those_ They could sit there and say that with just a few less units on that piece of property there may be some amenities gained and people can pay a little bit more for the house_ On the plus side th ey have graduate students living in Redfields and the neighborhood will just move one step closer to the University because they are transit in nature and less concerned about th e upkeep of the property. Valerie Long stated that she was present for the applicant, Dovetail Development_ She wanted to wait and make sure all of the other members of the public have had an opportunity to speak. She wanted to speak briefly to the criteria contained in the zoning ordinance for the granting of the critical slopes waiver since that is one issue that is obviously on the table. There has not been any discussion of it so far_ There was some discussion in the staff report about it and she wanted to just try and p-ersuade the Commission as to the reasons why they felt in reading the criteria for the granting the waiver why they think this project would support that_ She quickly wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the public to clarify some things. Mr_ Cox asked that she clarify that the comment that was made about the storm water draining all into a single pond is not technically accurate. Page 6 of 9 in your packet shows the storm water management plan. There is a line through the middle of the property and one -half of the water drains to the top or your page and the rest of the property drains to the bottom. So Mr_ Cox tells me that actually less water will drain down the hill towards Sherwood Manor if this project is put into place than it does now. If there are any further questions on storm water, she would like to call on Mr. Cox and his associate to help clarify ik_ But, she did want to clarify that issue. In addition, response to some of the comments about the traffic on Sunset, the extension to Sunset along the so called new road that Dovetail is proposing to build is a connection that the applicant is happy to make, but it is not something that its necessarily dead set on or so desires all that much_ It is a request of the County and it is highly desired by the County throughout the planning process. So that is why that road is there. It is not that the project depends upon access to Sunset or even necessarily desires it all that much. It works well_ She just wanted to mention that for the benefit for those members of the public who expressed concerns about it. Turning again to the provisions of the zoning ordinance that speak to the waiver, as the staff report points out there are sort of three paragraphs or three findings that the Planning - Commission needs to make_ In the first there are three categories where the Commission might make a finding. It reads you need to make either a finding of a. b or c in order to grant the requested waiver. The first one is that the strict application of Section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public safety or welfare. They would argue that the strict application of the critical slopes waiver in this instance would not forward the purposes of the chapter, which is the zoning ordinance, because the project as designed will help address some of those drainage problems that do exist already on Sherwood Manor. The drainage problems are not caused by this project since they already exist_ The applicant is proposing, as Mr. Cox mentioned, to make some very expensive off -site improvements to address that situation and work with those neighbors_ They also think that this design of 12 the project will forward the goals of the Comprehensive Plan among other things in terms of the Neighborhood Model. Ms. Joseph pointed out that she had not heard discussion about the critical slopes yet. IA s. Long stated that the some of the areas where the critical slopes are being disturbed are necessary to permit the internal road that runs horizontally through the project. If they were to remove that road in order to avoid having to disturb the largest area of critical slopes then it would be very difficult to access the other portions of the project as Mr_ Fritz was mentioning earlier. That would have a significant impact on the density levels there. As he indicated they were trying very hard to comply with the density designations that are called for on the property in the Comprehensive Plan_ which are 51 units per acre_ In the current draft of the Area B Study calls for 18 to 24 dwelling units per acre_ They tried to strike a nice balance between maximizing density and complying with the Comprehensive Plan, but also to respect the terrain and using the property in a way that is appropriate. As shown on the plan, the larger areas of critical slope in the middle of the property are not only going to be essentially preserved, but they are going to be improved as a result of this project. Again, she would defer to the Cox Company experts to talk more on that. But, they will stabilize those slopes_ They Quill feather them back a little bit and make them less steep_ They will improve their appearance and re- vegetate them in a way that will make them more stable as well as more attractive from the Sherwood Manor area_ She felt that this project meets and satisfies the criteria for granting a critical slopes waiver. Mr. Edgerton stated that early in her comments she mentioned something about a road and he was not sure which road she was talking about. He asked if it was the proposed new road going onto Sunset Avenue_ Ms. Long stated that was correct. Mr. Edgerton asked if they were doing that to comply with the interconnectivity that the County is asking for. Also, if they did away with that hour would this property be accessed? Ms. Long replied that they were doing that to comply with the interconnectivity requested. If they did away with it she was told that the access it would be along Mountainwood Road. Mr. Edgerton asked if the developer would be happy sending all of the traffic down to Mountainwood Road, and Ms_ Long replied that washer understanding on how thatwould work_ There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Brooks, the County's Senior Engineer, if he had any knowledge of this pond. A lot of what they were hearing draft with drainage issues. She asked if he could address that. Glenn Brooks felt that a lot of Mr. oleszar's comments were very astute_ Our regulations will extenuate the impacts, but will not negate them_ When he was talking about the 10 -year and the 2 -year target release rates that is what they regulate_ They also have a very vague state regulation that is called M- 19, which has to do with adequate channels downstream. So obviously they don't have them in this case. So then the regulation does not necessarily mean that they can make a person do off -site improvements_ Sometimes they will enhance the basin on site to try to hold back more water and have less of an impact downstream. The other comment he made was about the development changing the landscaping such that more water comes back towards their property. The engineering professional lingo is honoring the existing drainage device_ They have not regulation that speaks to that_ People often concentrate water in areas that were not concentrated previously and vice -versa and disperse it also. It is in inevitable that when you put in a lot of impervious areas that you will have more water. They regulate how fast it is released and over what period of time. So you will get more water_ You change the drainage divides such that you may send more towards Sunset Avenue and less towards Sherwood Manor_ But, he would doubt very seriously that you would have less water going to Sherwood Manor_ That is his professional opinion_ He asked if that gives the Commission a clear picture_ 13 Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions Mr_ Gannon asked if the modifications to the critical slopes that are requested here change the quantity or the direction of the run off. Mr. Brooks stated that it possibly }mould. It is hard to say because if they did not approve the modification to critical slopes they would have to redesign the property such that they may have less hard scape. It may have less development on that side of the ridge because that is where the critical slopes are. So the change in design is what would change the nature of the run off and not necessarily the critical slopes themselves. Mr. Cannon stated that he heard representation that changes to the critical slopes would have a beneficial effect in terms of bettering some of the slopes and providing vegetation that is not currently there. That the activity under this critical slopes waiver would in fact be beneficial in terms of slowing run off or increasing the absorption capacity of the land. He asked if he had a view on that. Mr. Brooks stated that it would be hard to say because as an engineer or professionally he likes to talk in quantities and measurements_ When they say feather slopes or respect terrain it does not really much_ So it sounds good,_ but he would have to go back to his earlier statement that he seriously doubts that th ere will be less water going towards Sherwood Manor in any particular design unless you had to send it somewhere else and send more water in another direction_ Mr. Cannon stated that the real question was what you do with that water on its way and when it gets there. Mr. Brooks stated that was right_ If you look at the design of the plan typically what you end up with is steeper slopes than when you started. That is probably graded 3 to 1 or 4: 1. A critical slope is a 4:1 slope. So whether we're going steep or not the feathering is shallower or flatter. Ms. Higgins stated that obviously one of the people who spoke said that they had been there 33 years_ What they have found historically in the County is that a development approved long ago does not even meet the current standards_ Mr. Brooks stated that is correct_ Ms. Higgins stated that now they were going to capture an area that has been potentially let erode and deteriorate over time that is above and draining to these areas, which could be making their problem -worse. At least with a controlled release of that water at the rate per the regulations, which she recognizes does not meet every storm, it could with off -site improvements alleviate if not eradicate some of those problems. She asked if that would be th e goal during the review process to look at that and make sure that the problem is not worse and that the problem is alleviated to the extent passible. Mr. Brooks stated yes and that it helps that the Sherwood Manor folks are willing to let them come on to their property and do off -site improvements. That is what would make the most significant difference_ The on site itineration she was talking about or the holding back of water will have mixed results_ Ms. Higgins stated that the down stream channel improvements, as referred to by Mr. Cox, if the homeowners are waiIIing to let them do that on their property and to grant the easements necessary to the County, that is a positive thing. Mr. Brooks stated that it is a positive thing. Mr. Edgerton noted that the Commission was reviewing the critical slopes tonight. It is the only vehicle that they have in a by right development to participate in the decision. If by granting the waiver of the critical slopes they are alloying greater density on the property than the property can support as far as run off,_ and then he has some problems with that_ One of the things that he heard recently on another project. which Mr_ Graham explained, that there was a lot of concern on 29 North in the Forest Lakes South area of some of the run off that was coming across into some of the ponds and lakes and filling 14 them with a lot of sediment_ A gentleman brought in photographs. They were sort of agonizing about what could or could not be done_ Mr_ Graham's explanation at that time was that there were extreme limitations to what control they can put on the amount of surface run off_ It is a little bit like the gentleman's comments about the 10 -gear flood versus the 100 -}rear flood that the regulations are limiting our ability to control that off site run off_ Granted working with the neighbors that will help. Is there any way to adjust that? Can they increase the engineering requirements? Can they ask the developer to voluntarily do that? Mr. Brooks stated that those were ideas that could be explored_ He felt that what Mr. Graham was speaking to mostly was the construction phase and the erosion and sediment control measures and how much sediment you can control getting off of the site_ Mr. Edgerton noted that is going to be a huge issue here. Mr. Brooks stated that it is limited both in the technological respects in that as much as they do with silt basins and filters and those kinds of things they can only capture so much and some of it gets away_ That is a technological limit_ The other is the regulation limit. The state only allows us to do so much- The re are certain things that you can do to go above and beyond the regulations. Ms. Joseph pointed out that the applicant is asking for a critical slopes waiver at this point in time and there are ways that they could mitigate the effects of grading within those critical slopes. Mr. Brooks stated that was certainly correct. Mr. Edgerton stated that unless he misheard it the entire site is going to be graded. Ms. Joseph noted that there are only little bits that are not going to be graded_ Ms. Higgins stated that was a side effect of achieving a model in the infill_ When you are really getting to the junk land that was not developed and you are trying to meet a density requirement the end result is that it all gets graded. On the other side of the coin is that there will be a bond posted and an enforcement of what goes on. But. there are limitations to the regulations that apply_ Mr. Brooks stated that typically more land will be disturbed than you see on the plan, especially in a case like this where they are bounded by retaining waIIs- They really need to put the erosion control measures further out than the retaining walls and it disturbs the site even more. Ms. Joseph asked Mr_ Fritz to talk a little bit about our current lighting standards because that seemed to be an issue_ Mr. Fritz stated that the applicant would have to meet our current lighting provisions with full shield cut off and ilimited spillover. That is one of the conditions_ It is listed as condition lb_ He will be reviewing the portion of the site that is not visible from the Entrance Corridor_ Then he and the Architectural Review Board will be reviewing that portion that is visible from the Entrance Corridor and the potential impacts_ Bo the lighting will be looked at across the site for both the spill over and design. Ms. ,Joseph stated that staff would be receiving a photometric plan, which shows all of the lighting levels on the site. Also, they wriII receive specifications that show that these lights are shielded so that the lights will not spill out into the adjacent properties_ Mr. Fritz stated that. the lights will have to be directed downward_ It is not that there is no spillover onto adjacent properties. Mr. Edgerton stated that the properties at lower elevation will not be shielded_ Mr. Fritz stated that that they would be able to see the light_ yes_ Ms. Joseph asked if that was something that staff could take a look at and work with the applicant. 15 Mr. Fritz stated yes, that he could work with the applicant to the extent passible. If in those areas where there is development on critical slopes he felt that you could potentially have a condition. But, he did not know how to word if_ But, that a condition that would address lighting in the areas related to the critical slopes so that there is a connection there_ He agreed to work with the applicant on lighting_ Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Fritz to explain by right zoning. Mr. Fritz stated that this property was zoned R -15_ It has not proffers_ which means it has no limitations on it. It is just a straight R -15 zoning that allows 15 dwelling units per acre. There are limitations on the building heights. There are landscaping and lighting requirements that they have to meet. There are parking and recreational requirements that they have to meet as well storm water and the like. You cannot place any additional conditions on the property except those which are specifically permitted by the zoning ordinance. Ms. Joseph stated that in other words if someone comes in and does a by right development that -what she was getting at was the traffic counts_ Mr. Fritz stated that if they meet the requirements of the ordinance the County will approve the plan. If DOT or the County has not determined that particular improvements need to be made, then they cannot be required. In this case one requirement does have to be made and that is based on the requirement in the zoning ordinance as well as a requirement from prior action, they must extend Mauntainwood Road as a public road from the end of existing state maintenance is to Sunset_ Mr. 6trucko asked what the height limitation was. Mr. Fritz stated that it was a split height limit_ It is 35 feet, but, they could increase it to 65 feet, but for every foot you increase you building height above 35 feet you increase your setback by 2 feet. Mr. Edgerton asked conceptually if the applicant wanted to avoid dealing with critical slopes they could achieve the exact same density or even greater density, then they could get up to the 15 with a higher building and less site disturbance_ But, that would not address any of the traffic issues, but would address some of the drainage. Mr. Fritz stated that potentially that was correct, but it would probably require the use of structured parking and buildings near the 65 foot height limit_ Mr. Strucko pointed out that he was looking at the proposed critical slopes waiver and he was thinking what was best for the adjacent community in granting or not granting it_ He was leaning in favor of granting it for the sake that he thought that potentially it is the lesser evil because it enables the applicant to work with the run off issue. He was sensing that there was a run off problem regardless of whether this activity happens or not. Mr. Edgerton stated that he was struggling with the same decision_ Certainly this is a by right development_ It is hard to ignore the fact that this property is heavily forested and some of that run off is being absorbed into the ground right now. If you look at the drawing and all of the black, unless he was mistaken, they were going to have a huge amount of hard surfaces that is going to be contributing significant amounts to the run off situation. His read of the staff report is a reluctant at best endorsement of this plan. Oversimplification of what they go through as a Commission when they are reviewing a waiver is that they are asking us to ignore a condition of the ordinance that prohibits them from doing work that they are proposing on critical slopes. It is hard to know what would come back to the Commission if they deny this_ He was of the opinion that it could only get better_ Therefore, he was leaning the other way. He felt that either with less density or density configured in such a way that it is more respectful of the existing site they +will at least be able to address better than they can right now the run off issues. He feNt that they were kind of stuck on the traffic issue. BA he was very concerned about adding this much traffic to Sunset Road. He felt that the City was going to be unhappy about this as well. Mr. Morris stated that right now, particularly in Sherwood Manor, they have a significant run off problem 16 The development is proposing a plan that will address that and really assist them. It seems that the situation could get a lot better if they grant the critical slopes request. Mr. Cannon stated that he was inclined to go Mr. Strucko's way. But_ he was looking at this as a high density area that would be marketed that way in order to serve this broad plan. It is going to be a highly engineered environment however you look at it. It is not going to be a natural environment. Whether you disturb steep slopes or not a lot of that site is going to be occupied acrd it is going to have a lot of mass on it with lights and will generate traffic. If they were to grant the waiver would that do anything to the incentives that the developer has to continue discussions with the neighboring community to make sure that those problems are ultimately and satisfactorily resolved_ Mr. Edgerton felt that it wrouId not. Ms. Higgins suggested that they condition it in some way- She felt that there are not a high percentage of critical slopes on this area although it is an infill piece_ They have seen ones that are much worse_ Typical in the vicinity of the storm water management area is where the critical slopes exist. To a large extent because it is not like the slopes are flattened to the housing units or the parking lots there is the one interconnection road that is in the very top edge of the critical slopes. It is a very necessary and integral part. Sometimes when you don't allow the critical slopes to be granted it could result in higher retaining walls because you can avoid slopes by stopping the grade and changing the grade abruptly_ The other area is near the clubhouse, which is a very minimal area. Then up along Sunset Avenue she did not think that was disturbed. To a great extent the area that was disturbed is actually not under pavement and will be in a controlled environment_ S1 a felt that they have pretty good regulations about how to stabilize and to what grade that trey are left. Special plantings would be required on steep grades and then there would be a maintenance bond for that purpose. Now they are down to the critical slopes waiver and she felt that they were getting a road connection. If they can condition this in some way she would much rather see what tends to be an accelerating deteriorating situation with drainage_ In other words, once it finds it path the path gets deeper and wider, and that sort of thing. Really if they have concerns about the storm water they need to be talking about changing the regulations because it was a standard that was not applied 30 years ago_ They have a very strong ordinance, not that it can not be improved upon. But,_ that is where they should focus_ But, there is probably no downstream basin to this because the development before is not retaining its water. It is the older developments that actually tend to have those problems_ So what it is worth, she felt yes that they could see a redesign, but it would be to go more vertical and they could not control that_ Actually this does not respond to our density requirements for the urban development. So narrowing it down to a critical slope waiver she would much rather see it controlled with some downstream improvements that might help the Sherwrood Court. Mr. Edgerton stated that he could be persuaded to go that direction if they could some way legally link the downstream improvements_ He felt that would be a fair trade off, but he did not know if they were allow to do that. He asked Mr. Ka mptner if they would be aIlowed to do that. Mr. Kamptner felt that in this case that they have the agreement or the consent of the owners to such a condit on. He would recommend that the County impose a very non- technical kind of condition_ He suggested that condition 9 read that prior to final site plan approval submittal of documentation signed by the o -r:ner and the President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association evidencing an agreement between the parties addressing the drainage issues within Sherwood Manor Subdivision_ The County needs to have something in the files showing that they have been able to work it out_ Mr. Cox stated that was something that they would be agreeable to. Further it is our commitment to the Sherwood Manor property owners that they were going to try to exceed the minimum requirements of the County_ He noted that Glenn was proper in saying that the current County regulations deal with the retention of the 10 -year storm. When you have a larger rainfall event you don't necessarily get the same positive results downstream. The area in which they have the majority of the critical slopes is the area which they are intending to do storm water management_ Our concept plan that they have been working with the down stream property owners also calls for two smaller basin type of structures that would serve as kind of large check dams that would provide an extra level of both management and water quality extenuation_ In addition to that the concept plan calls for installing storm drainage pipes and roughly 7 or 8 different drop yard inlets in the areas on the Sherwood Manor property where they are experiencing 17 current drainage difficulties_ That is not to say that when a 100 -year storm comes along that there still won't be problems_ But_ he felt that they could commit to certainly exceed the minimum County regulations as they exist right now. Ms. Joseph stated that she could not really on the plan what is happening in this area_ She asked Mr. Cox d they were thinking of reforesting. Mr. Cox stated that one exhibit that he discussed with Bill today that did not get in their package dealt with reforestation_ Today they presented this exhibit to the President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association_ The intent is to come back in only on the disturbed slopes in the eastern segment of the property on our side of the property upon completion of grading and reforesting that area using different kinds of hills than you currently have now. A little bit of difficulties that the homeowners anticipated was relative to lighting_ The concern was that being 30 or 40 feet down the hill they are going to look up into shielded lamps_ What they agreed to do as a part of their overall planning commitment to them as a part of the off -site improvements is to work with the individual property owners and if need be to enhance screening and buffering to put in coniferous materials to their satisfaction in locations in their open space to enhance some of the deteriorating landscape that they have now. But, also to do the same closer to the individual units because that is where you really gain the impact when you have a home that is situated below_ Ms. Joseph asked if there was a note on this which reflects what he was saying now_ That they were willing to work with the individual units and that part of this is dealing with the lighting aspect and part of it is slowing down the water as it comes down the hill_ Is there anything on there that the Commission can reference? Mr. Cox stated what they assumed would be a condition of approval if the Commission elected to approve this is that they would have a plan that would be satisfactory to the Homeowners Association and would relate to storm drainage and landscape enhancements. That would be a condition of the final site plan approval. Mr_ Edgerton asked if that wouId include shielded lighting, and Mr. Cox replied yes that it would. Ms. Higgins stated that this was directly related to the critical slopes and the disturbed areas. Mr. Morris stated that was absolutely correct. Ms. Joseph asked Mr. K amptner if there was a modification on that condition that they could include. Mr. Kamptner suggested that a clause be added that would say address the drainage. landscaping, screening and outdoor lighting issues within the Sherwood Manor Subdivision. Mr. Morris asked if that would be condition 9_ and Mr. Kamptner agreed_ Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr_ Craddock seconded,_ that SDP -2005 -123, The Woodlands. critical slopes waiver be approved with all staffs recommended conditions to include the amendment to id as Mr_ Fritz stated regarding the existing sidewalk and the addition of condition 9_ Ms. Joseph asked for consideration of an amendment to the motion to add the condition that the final site plan come back before the Commission_ Motion: Mr. Morris_ Mr_ Craddock seconded, to amend the motion for SDP -2005 -123, The Woodlands, to add the condition that the final site plan come back before the Planning Commission. The conditions as amended are as follows: The Current Development Division shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative final approvals for the following conditions have been obtained_ The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Current Development Planner approval to include: a- Landscape Plan to include conservation plan and provision of fifteen (15) percent tree canopy - h- Lighting Plan c- Provision of a sidewalk on the north side of "proposed new road" connecting to the internal sidewalk apposite the clubhouse - d. Provision of a sidewalk extending from the end of the north side of the existing Mountainood Road connecting to the internal sidewalk to the clubhouse- s- Approval of plat combining parcels and dedicating right of way for "proposed new road::- 2. Current Development Engineer approval to include= a- Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - b- Stormwater Management Plan- a. Albemarle County Building Official approval to include: a- Design of all retaining walls of over 4 feet in height - b- Design and location of barriers located at the tap of all walls of 4 feet in height or greater. 4. Albemarle Counter Service Authority Approval to include: a- Water and Sewer plans. v. Fire and Rescue Division approval to include: a- Adequacy of fire flow. b- Location of Fire Hydrants - G. Architectural Review Board approval. 7. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road plans for "proposed new road" as a public road connecting existing Mountainwood Road to Sunset Avenue. 9. Approval of Road Names- 9. Submittal of documentation signed by the owner and the President of the Sherwood Manor Homeowner's Association evidencing an agreement between the parties addressing drainage, landscaping, screening and outdoor lighting issues within the Sherwood Manor Subdivision. 14- The final site plan shall come back before the Planning Commission - The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. 19 Attachment E Ctctaher 2006 l iII brit. Chi cf ofCurrent Deve €opruait Depanmuil ofComnuamty Developmtmt Coltnfy of Alb=arle 401 Mciwire Road, Ronm 227 Charlottegvillc, VA 22942 -4596 Re: Slily 2006 -51 The Woadhmds of Chadottesvi#le Dear W"P ritz: I am the Pfcoident Al the hc'rwovd Manor 11orleowner's ssocaatim, Sherwood ]fir is 10c:ated ftw lY adjacent to the land that The Woodlands of Chaflotkzvillc, fie ("Woodlands') poscs to develop. We. have bcm in caiYs-t. t with the rer-rc!-u%rftfivm of Woodlands durii all of the pr-L-davelop=nt jibascs. We have attended ni:!etingg with the Woodlands repms"lati i and bavto licId scvcral llorncownm' A ciado n iwctings o r the pass months to discuss the issue tjs� ic'L.21ed with dcvelapment of tho Woodlturds Rropar _ We appreciate the e$'f`(xts #lint the Va'oc dlmmL uiado to respond to our concerns and in praoAditng us with detailed inforrnatioTi about the proposed develupnmcmt_ On hehalf of the S[Wrwood M or Ponicowner's Mwciation, 1 would like to inforrn YOU and the PtanniagCeininission that we h.avurraiched air gaumt .nt with Wwdlands that w1dresses to our fUl€ aatisfaCtiL)r. all of the cnnqNMls tisEd we N131—ft—Ad to t O Pl=rnin CAYM`Fnilz�jon on hintsary 10, 2006, jacluding those concerns regar&ng drainage, sciree Ijig., h ntulg and laiadscapir g. We have nearly completed die final d ails of the v-rium a"meznt for several er .w-- mts on our PWPcrty, whici wo will have fully executed arid delivered to you vtTy soon, aW m lainly prior to the November 7"' Plarnnitrg Commissicm mcN- -ting- Nice strongly Support the Waodlands Mojeu2 and ask tiv :t tine C.'ofmission grant lit ia l xiw Plan approval cm November 7 so Ow project mi move fbTwarl_ �!c� lvo-]!c f�}i�ard co s c�ana� ire our �� d werldng a onsh* h'-*- ,5(xi�iir�cls'a#xI 1 -h0.:k� rcprcticntath.Ce o Es irerrt"C"O n}palI - Dwatail Dcvclopmeirt, LLC. Thank, you for your time aad fix ,,nsuiemtioix tier. c)ur uinrems, and Please fef:l free to ountact Fne, at 971 -8442 with any qucstjam, sincerel y,- CiaC �, �icicui Sherwood Manor I ortzeown-�,Ir'S Association cc= The Woodlands of Charlottesville, LLC., c10 Valerie W, Long, WiIlimns Mullen BOOM 20