Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300055 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2013-11-21�I�'��Il� llfll��• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 21, 2013 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2013 -55 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- initial Dear Sir: Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 10 -7 -13) against applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below: 1. [32.4.2.1(f)] The public notification fee of $200 has not been paid. Comments have been held till the SRC meeting of Nov 21, 2013. The site plan action/ approval letter will not be issues for this initial site plan until the notification fee is paid. Also, VDOT comments, if any, are pending. 2. [Condition of Approval] During the initial submittal and review of the preliminary subdivision plat [SUB2005 -241 ] for this project the applicant requested that all details having to do with the townhouse lots and all infrastructure necessary to serve it would be dealt with at the future site plan stage of the development. Thus these items became conditions of approval. The current submittal is now in the site plan stage of review, thus staff has included all applicable comments for the townhouse lots. 3. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14 -401, 14 -419, 32.7.9.71 Screening of Double Frontage Lots. "Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the rear of the residences and the public right -of- way" Pursuant to Section 14 -419 the required screening shall be dictated by the requirements of Section 32.7.9.7. The proposed landscaping depicted on Rio Road East and Penfield Lane appears to meet the Street Tree requirements of the ordinance (32.7.9.5) but does not meet the Screening requirements of the ordinance for double frontage lots (32.7.9.7), both landscaping requirements must be met. Revise landscape plan for the townhomes to also meet the Screening requirements of the ordinance pursuant to Section 32.7.9.7(a, b, c, d, and e). 4. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14 -401, 14 -419, 32.7.9.71 Also, the approved road plan [SUB200700077] contains a landscaping plan for the Townhouse section of the development which appears to meet the street tree requirements of the ordinance along Rio Road East and Penfield Lane; however, neither the proposed site plan nor the approved road plans' landscaping for the Townhouse section meets the Screening requirements of the ordinance for double frontage lots. Once the townhomes' landscaping plan on the site plan has been revised and approved, the road plan's landscaping sheet for the townhome section should be amended to match the site plan prior to final site plan approval. Revise. 5. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 32.7.9.5(e)3] Landscaping along streets. The required parking spaces from the townhome lots 35 -41 are adjacent to Lot 34. When cars park in these spaces at night their headlights will shine directly onto Lot 34 and potentially other lots in the development. Staff understands that street landscaping was not depicted nor required in this area on the approved road plans because of conflicts with the sanitary sewer line easements in this same location. However upon review of the townhomes proposed parking staff feels that some alternative such as evergreen shrubs of ever trees be placed in the open space across from Lots 35 -41 to limit impacts of the require parking for the townhomes. Section 32.7.9.5(e)3 provides for the agent to authorize different landscaping designs to minimize impact of the parking area. Revise. 6. [32.5.2(a)] It appears the setback lines for Block A and Block B are incorrectly labeled on the plan and should be revised at this time. Notably these two blocks should each have 3 fronts and one side. Each have a front on Rio Road East which must depict a 25' setback, each have a front on Penfield Lane which must depict a 25' setback, Block A has a front on Treesdale Way and Block B has a front on Stonehenge Way, of which each must depict a 25' setback. Revise. 7. [32.5.2(a)] It appears that the General Notes on sheet 1 need to be updated. Specifically the adjacent property information (note #10) seems out of date, as staff was unable to locate TMP 06100- 00 -00- 18300 which is listed on the site plan as being owned by AHIP. Staff believes this property is now TMP 06100 -00 -00 -18200 owned by Treesdale. Revise appropriately. Also current property owner information for Blocks A and B as listed on the site plan (note #1) do not match that in County Tax Records. The DB page references numbers provided in general note #4 does not reflect Rio Rd Holding, LLC as the owner. County Tax Records indicate that the owner of Block A (TMP 061A1- O1 -OA- 00100) as Marvin and Carolyn Spencer and the owner of Block B (TMP 061A1- O1 -0B- 00100) as Albert and Lisa Spaaar. Revise appropriately and clarify the ownership information. 8. [32.5.2(n), 32.7.2.3(a),14 -422] Sidewalks and landscaping strips. On the plan please dimension and label all existing and proposed sidewalks and planting strips. Additionally, clarify the lack of sidewalk and planting strip connections fronting the townhouse lots 35 -47 onto Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way. These sidewalks and landscape strips are required and appropriately depicted on the approved road plan; however, they are not depicted on the initial site plan currently under review in this office. Rather this proposal includes concrete driveway entrances and driveways accessing Lots 35 — 47 in place of the previously approved sidewalks and planting strips. Revise. The road plans and the site plan should match. Be aware that if changes to this site plan cause it to not match the road plans, the road plans must be amended before final site plan approval can be granted. Revise to provide sidewalks and landscaping strip. 9. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.6.1, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks along streets. Please extend the sidewalks fronting Block A and B which front Treesdale Way and Stonehenge way to the property lines shared with Stonehenge and Treesdale. Also, these sidewalks should not abruptly end rather they should have CG -12/ ADA accessible ramps to the street for persons with mobility impairment. Revise. 10. [32.5.2(n)] It appears there is a median between each driveway for lots 35 -47. Will this be concrete or grass? On the plans please clarify. 11. [32.5.2(n)] On the plan dimension the four (4) required guest spaces along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way. If the applicant chooses for these spaces to be intermitted rather than paint stripped then parking signage shall be depicted on the plan. Regardless of the chosen method to designate /delineate parking on the plan, assure the dimensions of the spaces are shown on the site plan. Revise. 12. [32.5.2 (n)] Sheet 2 depicts project limits; however, it appears that modification will actually go beyond these limits, specifically within the private right -of -way easements of Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way for driveway connections. Revise the project limits appropriately. 13. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.4(b)21 Staff questions how the existing tree adjacent to Lot 47 is to remain based on it's proximity to the proposed structure. It appears this is the only tree to remain. Regardless, if trees are to remain, a signed tree conservation plan shall be provided. 14. [32.5.2 (n), 4.12.15(h)] Separation of parking area from public street or private road. Where off - street parking is provided, parking areas shall be established sufficiently inside the site so as to prevent queuing onto a public street or private road. The minimum required separation shall be determined by the county engineer and will be based on the intensity of traffic on the site. In any case, the minimum separation should not be less than one (1) car length for the most minimal use. Assure that the parking spaces for Lot 41 and Lot 42 have sufficient separation distance from vehicles turning into Treesdale Way or Stonehenge Way from Penfield Lane. 15. [Comment] Upon a recent site visit it was observed that the entrance of the 30' Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement does not currently connect to the existing sidewalk fronting Treesdale Way. When is this to be paved? 16. [Comment] Also, there is a portion of the Greenway Access and Stormwater Management Maintenance Easement located on Stonewater's property which was not built /paved, specifically the 12' portion of the easement which connects to Treesdale (DB3932PG498). This segment needs to be paved to provide Treesdale residents access to the greenway. When is this to be paved? 17. [Comment] Sheet 1, note #21 appears to have a typographical error which references 14 townhouse lots; however, there are truly only 13. Revise. Engineering Comments — Michelle Roberge 1) Verify with VDOT if warrants are met to design and install the signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park Lane to satisfy Treesdale Park proffer. 2) The sidewalk to the townhomes along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way is not uniform throughout the entire length. It jogs out, then crosses over medians between each lot. Show sidewalk to tie into sidewalk from Penfield Lane. 3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot. 4) Please note that a subdivision plat is required to subdivide the lots as shown on plan. The approved plat from SUB2007 -77 shows this area as Block A and Block B only. 5) There is an existing overhead electric line running through the proposed development. Clarify the new location of electric line since it will be an obstruction when townhomes are built. 6) Show CG -12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane. 7) Some existing items need to be shown or removed. Address the following: a) Show existing sidewalk along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way, just across proposed townhomes. b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove on plans. c) There is a retaining wall south of building in the Treesdale development. Show wall and include existing grading between Treesdale and this development. See WPO2011 -88 since the proposed contours now appear to be existing. The proposed swale for townhomes at this area will change slightly to tie to existing contours. 8) A WPO application shall be submitted for the proposed townhomes. The county records show that the most current approved WPO application is WP02012 -73 (StonewaterSubdivision), but E &S measures for the proposed townhomes are not included since it was considered future development. Also, it appears from WP020 10-11 (Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO application. E911— Andrew Slack 1. Approved Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer - No objections ACSA — Alex Morrison - See attached comments. Approved. Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer - No objections VDOT— Troy Austin - Comments pending Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez&albemarle.org or 434 -296- 5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions.