Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300067 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-06-30COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner June 30, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2014 -00067 Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017113 with revisions dated 10111113, 12130113, 1129114, 2110114, 3110114, and 6/2114 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments: 1. VDOT has no objection to the proposed development plan as submitted. 2. It does not appear that the Stonewater Townhomes will warrant a traffic signal at the intersection of Penfield Lane and Rio Road. However, there are additional warrants for a signal other than traffic volume warrants that should be discussed in the analysis. We are working with Ramey Kemp & Associates to clarify this issue. If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 589 -5871. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [434- 293 -3719] Owner or rep.: Marvin & Carolyn Spencer Plan received date: 10 Jun 2014 Date of comments: 12 Jun 2014 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300067. I have no objections to the site plan. I am only awaiting VDOT and planning approval of the Road Plan. A. Site Development Plan — Initial Site Plan (SDP201300055) 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. [Initial Site Plan] Comment not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed townhomes will require a signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park, but provide a signal warrant analysis per VDOT comments. [Final Site Plan] The traffic signal warrant analysis was provided. Due to the existing sight distance on Rio Rd E at the crest vertical curve, providing a signal will be much safer for the residents. Further discussion with VDOT is necessary to discuss the safety concerns at the intersection. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 My previous comment is still an issue. Pending comments from VDOT. [Final Site Plan — Revision 21 Pending comments from VDOT. 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. Comment addressed. 3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot. Comment addressed. 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. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. 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. Applicant stated during the Site Review meeting on November 21, 2013 that the overhead electric line will be replaced with an underground electric line. The applicant states in Feb 5, 2014 response letter that overhead line has been removed. 6) Show CG -12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove on plans. Comment addressed. 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 WP02011- 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. Comment addressed. 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 WP0201 0-11 (Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO application. Comment addressed. A WPO application has been submitted and is being reviewed. 9) If applicable, revise Road Plan. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 [Initial Site Plan] It appears that a portion of the Penfield Lane R/W is being reduced. If this is approved, road plans need to reflect this change. Also, landscaping and other road plan items revised on this final site plan will need to be reflected on a road plan. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 A road plan has been submitted. Application is currently under review. [Final Site Plan — Revision 21 Road plan comments from Engineering and VDOT sent to applicant. I have not received comments from Fire Rescue. [Final Site Plan — Revision 3] I have approved the road plan with the condition that VDOT and Planning shall approve the road plan. B. Site Development Plan — Final Site Plan (SDP201300067) 1) The proposed sanitary sewer line is underneath all driveways. I recommend not placing it under driveways. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. I discussed with ACSA. Waterline easements on both Stonehenge Way and Rio Road are causing space constraints for sanitary sewer lines. The only suitable location for sanitary sewer is underneath the driveways. 2) It does not appear that you have adequate space for the roof drain easements. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 3) It appears that runoff is draining towards lot 43 & 44. Please drain away from bldg or capture runoff. I recommend placing spot elevations where patio landing meets sidewalk for lots 43- 48. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 4) Deck dimensions are shown. Is this directly above the patio shown. Clarify dimensions since patio dimensions do not match. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. Sincerely, Michelle Roberge _ R a�' 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cu peper, V rgin a 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner June 3, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -00067 Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017113 with revisions dated 10111113, 12130113, 1129114, 2110114, 3110114, and 512114 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments: 1. The right -of -way concerns with the site plan appear to have been addressed. The initially proposed right -of -way lines should be removed from the site plan as they are no longer valid. 2. An easement and a maintenance agreement need to be provided for the sidewalk along Penfield Lane. 3. It does not appear that the Stonewater Townhomes will warrant a traffic signal at the intersection of Penfield Lane and Rio Road. However, there are additional warrants for a signal other than traffic volume warrants that should be discussed in the analysis. We are working with Ramey Kemp & Associates to clarify this issue. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A" /1A7 "k Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:47 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: SDP201367: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Site Plan Chris, The ACSA is still awaiting final dedication of Stonewater before the utility plans can be approved. Once dedication is completed we will be able to approve the utility plan and recommend approval of the final site plan. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (F) 434 - 979 -0698 Like the ACSA on Facebook at www.facebook.com /acsaconnect �pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [434- 293 -3719] Owner or rep.: Marvin & Carolyn Spencer Plan received date: 7 May 2014 Date of comments: 28 May 2014 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300067. Please see the following comments. I have also included my comments from the initial site plan SDP201300055. A. Site Development Plan — Initial Site Plan (SDP201300055) 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. [Initial Site Plan] Comment not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed townhomes will require a signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park, but provide a signal warrant analysis per VDOT comments. [Final Site Plan] The traffic signal warrant analysis was provided. Due to the existing sight distance on Rio Rd E at the crest vertical curve, providing a signal will be much safer for the residents. Further discussion with VDOT is necessary to discuss the safety concerns at the intersection. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 My previous comment is still an issue. Pending comments from VDOT. [Final Site Plan — Revision 21 Pending comments from VDOT. 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. Comment addressed. 3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot. Comment addressed. 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. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. 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. Applicant stated during the Site Review meeting on November 21, 2013 that the overhead electric line will be replaced with an underground electric line. The applicant states in Feb 5, 2014 response letter that overhead line has been removed. 6) Show CG -12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove on plans. Comment addressed. 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 WP02011- 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. Comment addressed. 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 WP02010- 11(Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO application. Comment addressed. A WPO application has been submitted and is being reviewed. 9) If applicable, revise Road Plan. [Initial Site Plan] It appears that a portion of the Penfield Lane R/W is being reduced. If this is approved, road plans need to reflect this change. Also, landscaping and other road plan items revised on this final site plan will need to be reflected on a road plan. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 A road plan has been submitted. Application is currently under review. [Final Site Plan — Revision 21 Road plan comments from Engineering and VDOT sent to applicant. I have not received comments from Fire Rescue. B. Site Development Plan — Final Site Plan (SDP201300067) 1) The proposed sanitary sewer line is underneath all driveways. I recommend not placing it under driveways. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. I discussed with ACSA. Waterline easements on both Stonehenge Way and Rio Road are causing space constraints for sanitary sewer lines. The only suitable location for sanitary sewer is underneath the driveways. 2) It does not appear that you have adequate space for the roof drain easements. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 3) It appears that runoff is draining towards lot 43 & 44. Please drain away from bldg or capture runoff. I recommend placing spot elevations where patio landing meets sidewalk for lots 43- 48. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 4) Deck dimensions are shown. Is this directly above the patio shown. Clarify dimensions since patio dimensions do not match. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. Sincerely, Michelle Roberge �I�'�rill� 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 May 9, 2014 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2013 -67 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Final Dear Sir: Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 5 -2 -14) against applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below: [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. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14 -401, 14 -419, 32.7.9.7] 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). Rev 1. Comment addressed. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14 -401, 14 -419, 32.7.9.7] 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. The road plans will need to be revised to match the landscaping shown on the site plan. Submit an amendment to the road plan for review and approval. Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant and requests this takes place prior to approval of the subdivision plat dividing the TH units. The road plans will need to be revised to match the landscaping shown on the site plan. Rev 4. Awaiting a revised road plan to be submitted. 4. [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 evergreen 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. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] The Right of Way Vacation plat should be approved and recorded prior to the final site plan being approved. Once approved and recorded revise the final site plan to include DB Page #s for the recorded plat. Rev 4. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 6. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.2(a)] 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 #3 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 061 A 1- 01 -OB- 00100) as Albert and Lisa Spaaar. Revise appropriately and clarify the ownership information. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 7. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.6.i, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks along streets. While the sidewalks fronting Block A and B which front Treesdale Way and Stonehenge way have been extended to meet the property lines shared with Stonehenge and Treesdale. These sidewalks should not abruptly end rather they should have CG -12/ ADA accessible ramps to the street for persons with mobility impairment. Revise. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 8. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.2(n)] On the plan four (4) required guest spaces along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way are depicted with dimensions; however, there are no parking signs or painting stripes to mark/designate the spaces /area for the spaces. On the plan provide the paint striping or parking signage to designate the parking area to the public. Revise. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 9. [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? Rev 2. Per the applicant the greenway trail will be tied into the existing sidewalk with the construction of the improvements for the TH units. 10. [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? Rev 2. Per the applicant they are working with Treesdale to determine who will make the tie -in connection. 11. [Comment] The site plan does not match the right of way vacation plat that is under review by the County. Specifically the plat depicts Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way as also proposed to be reduced down to 44' right of way easements.The site plan depicts only Penfield Lane being reduced down to 44' but neglects to include the two internal private roads. Revise /explain. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 12. [Comment, 32.7.9.8(b)] Any plantings not over 5' after 10 years cannot be counted towards the canopy requirement. Revise the tree canopy calculations to remove the shrubs from the total that will not reach a maturity of 5' tall. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 13. [Comment] The site plan does not appear to match the right of way vacation plat that is under review by the County. Specifically the 6' landscape strip along Penfield Lane. The site plan depicts 4' of the 6' landscape strip as being added to the lot to obtain the required setbacks; however, this should truly depict the entire 6' landscape strip as being consumed by the lot. It appears that the public road is truly only 40' FC /FC which essentially straddles VDOT with 2' of the landscape strip to maintain. Revise /explain. Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant. Please be aware that the maintenance agreement for the sidewalk and the entire 6' planting strip will be required with the R/W vacation plat. 14. [Comment] Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way are also being reduced down to 44' rights of way. However, the notation for the rights of way still reads 52'. Revise /explain. Rev 2. Comment addressed. New Comments 15. [4.11.1 ] Decks may project not more than four (4) feet into any required yard; provided that no such feature shall be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line. It appears that the decks associated with Block A project slightly more than 4' into the required front yard; specifically it appears they all encroach 4.5' into the front yard setback. This is half a foot over the permitted length or permissible encroachment. Reduce the decks in Block A so they do not encroach past 4' into the required front yard setback. To assure this is met; on the plan provide a note which states how much encroachment each deck is into the front yard setback. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 16. [32.7.9.7(e)] Screening of Double Frontage Lots. The site proposes to install a fence along Rio Road East; however, the plan neglects to make note of the material type of the fence or the height of the fence. On the plan provide this information. For screening purposes the fence shall be a minimum of 6' tall. Rev 4. Comment addressed. 17. [Comment] On sheet 3, at the top left of the page there is a "Note" which contains a typographical error which references 13 townhouse lots. To avoid confusion revise this note to provide the correct number of townhouse lots (14). Rev 3. Comment addressed. 18. [Comment] On the plan the acreages for the townhouse lots do not seem to be coming out correctly? Namely the cover sheet and the landscaping sheet make note that the total acreage for the townhouse lots is 33,795 SF which is 0.78Acres. However, sheet 3 lists Block B as 16,466 SF and Block A as 20,070 SF which when combined comes out to a total of 36,536 SF which is .83 Acres. Please clarify this inconsistency as it affects the canopy requirements of the site. Revise. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 19. [32.7.9.8(a)3] Tree Canopy. On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, the townhouse site attempts to utilize 10% canopy calculations; however, the site is a Residential Use of 10 dwelling units per acre or less (3.68 DUA). Thus the minimum tree canopy for this site is twenty (20) percent. Revise appropriately. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 20. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, in the Plant Schedule, under Quantity of Plants, the quantity of plants does not match the actual number of plantings shown on the plan for (PA) Platanus Acerifolia, which is listed as quantity 4; however, 12 plantings were found. Revise appropriately. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 21. [Comment] On the landscaping plan clearly depict the sight distance easements to assure that there is no conflict in proposed tree planting locations. This will also help to assure VDOT's 4t' comment is adequately addressed. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 22. [32.7.9.7(c)] Shrub height. Shrubs relied upon for screening purposes shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height when planted. On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, in the Plant Schedule, under Size of Plants, the size of the shrubs fronting Penfield Lane, IV - Itea Virginica— 'Henrys Garnet', are all listed as 12 " -18 ". However these shall be a minimum of 18" when planted. Revise plan to assure they are 18" at a minimum when planted. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 23. [32.7.9.9(d), 32.5.2(n), 32.7.9.7(e)] Installation and Maintenance of Required Landscaping and Screening. For the required screening along Rio Road and Penfield Lane provide the dimensions of the landscape easements that these plantings are to be located in and label them on the plan. Also, prior to final site plan approval the easements shall be set to record with a maintenance agreement approved by the County Attorney. Prior to final site plan approval on the plan provide the Deed Book and Page reference number of these recorded easements. Staffsuggests the applicant depict these easements on the Right of Way Vacation plat (SUB2013 -181) or the final subdivision plat (SUB201400049). Also assure to provide a maintenance agreement for the County Attorney to review OR assure that the previous Covenants and Restrictions document covers the additional landscaping easements and then set that plat and legal document to record. Rev 4. Comment partially addressed. Throughout pages 3 and 5 the required easement is referenced as "Par. Width access, landscaping & Maintenance Easement ", once the final subdivision plat is recorded which shows these easements please revise the note to also provide the DB page number of the recorded final sub plat. 24. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. The Right of Way Vacation plat (SUB2013 -181) depicts Open Space Easements for Landscaping and Sidewalk Maintenance. These easements should be labeled and dimensioned on the site plan. Revise. Rev 4. Comment addressed. 25. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, on the revised plan the landscaping for Block B fronting Rio Rd depicts 4 (PA) Platanus Acerifolia plants as full circles; however, throughout the plan they are depicted as circles with swiss cheese edges. Simply assure that the 4 PA plantings fronting Rio Rd are correctly labeled to be circles with swiss cheese edges. There is no need to change plantings as they are correctly labeled as (UP) Ulmus Parvifolia elsewhere on the plan, just assure the 4 PA's in question are labeled correctly. This is merely to avoid confusion when inspectors are inspecting the site. Revise appropriately. If you have a question about this, please call me. Rev 4. Comment addressed. 26. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, on the revised plan the area fronting Rio Rd for both Block A and Block B are labeled as "LAWN"; however, with the revised plantings and required landscape easements, are these areas to remain as lawns? If not, revise the sheet to omit the "LAWN" note. Revise if appropriate. Rev 4. Comment addressed. 27. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, remove the last 5 (IC) Ilex Cornuta plantings which are closest to Penfield Lane as they hinder access from the 30' Greenway Easement to the sidewalk. The rest of these plantings shall remain. Revise. Rev 4. Comment addressed. VDOT— Troy Austin - Comments pending. Engineering Comments — Michelle Roberge - Comments pending. ACSA — Alex Morrison - ACSA is waiting on the R/W dedication of Stonewater before they approve the Townhomes plan. Pending VDOT approval of R/W vacation plat. 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. �pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [434- 293 -3719] Owner or rep.: Marvin & Carolyn Spencer Plan received date: 12 Mar 2014 Date of comments: 27 Mar 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300067. Please see the following comments. I have also included my comments from the initial site plan SDP201300055. A. Site Development Plan — Initial Site Plan (SDP201300055) 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. [Initial Site Plan] Comment not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed townhomes will require a signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park, but provide a signal warrant analysis per VDOT comments. [Final Site Plan] The traffic signal warrant analysis was provided. Due to the existing sight distance on Rio Rd E at the crest vertical curve, providing a signal will be much safer for the residents. Further discussion with VDOT is necessary to discuss the safety concerns at the intersection. [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 My previous comment is still an issue. Pending comments from VDOT. 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. Comment addressed. 3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot. Comment addressed. 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. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. 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. Applicant stated during the Site Review meeting on November 21, 2013 that the overhead electric line will be replaced with an underground electric line. The applicant states in Feb 5, 2014 response letter that overhead line has been removed. 6) Show CG -12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove on plans. Comment addressed. 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 WP02011- 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. Comment addressed. 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 WP0201 0-11 (Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO application. Comment addressed. A WPO application has been submitted and is being reviewed. 9) If applicable, revise Road Plan. [Initial Site Plan] It appears that a portion of the Penfield Lane R/W is being reduced. If this is approved, road plans need to reflect this change. Also, landscaping and other road plan items revised on this final site plan will need to be reflected on a road plan. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 [Final Site Plan — Revision 11 A road plan has been submitted. Application is currently under review. B. Site Development Plan — Final Site Plan (SDP201300067) 1) The proposed sanitary sewer line is underneath all driveways. I recommend not placing it under driveways. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. I discussed with ACSA. Waterline easements on both Stonehenge Way and Rio Road are causing space constraints for sanitary sewer lines. The only suitable location for sanitary sewer is underneath the driveways. 2) It does not appear that you have adequate space for the roof drain easements. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 3) It appears that runoff is draining towards lot 43 & 44. Please drain away from bldg or capture runoff. I recommend placing spot elevations where patio landing meets sidewalk for lots 43- 48. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 4) Deck dimensions are shown. Is this directly above the patio shown. Clarify dimensions since patio dimensions do not match. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. Sincerely, Michelle Roberge • 0=6Z COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434 ) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 26, 2014 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP-2013-67 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Final Dear Sir: Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 3-10-14) against applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below: [Condition of Approval] DLiriao the initial SUbinittal and review of the preliminary subdivision plat C" [SIM2005-2-4.11 for this project the applicant reqtiested that ,,dl aWails havinq to do the imiwhozise .p J /ot. and all hi, istructare nuxsswy to serve, -if -i'1,01 & he de�t-1111 10th al thefittare,site plan stage of d,cwelo ' i�nnera, Thus these itenis becanie conditions of approval. The corrent submittal. is now in the sit-, plan stao-e of review. thits staff has included all applicable cornnitjits for the lots. Rev L Z_ Coniment addressed. [32-5.2(p)i Condition of Approial, 14-401. 1.4-4.19, 317.9.7] Screening "Doti.blef.-'ronta2e residential l(at shall be screef.ied bet",Len the Mar of the residences arid the public rig, at'- ofµ va.y "" l'r�rstzant to Sect.iorr ( 1.19 th.c recl�.tir'€ d scr'eenirag :�hazll lie dictated by the requirements of Section The proposed landscaping depicted on Ric) Road East and Penfietd Lane appears to meet the Stree!Trm reqtikenients of-the ordinance (I 1 32 .,T9.5) tint does not meet the Screening reqLiirernents of The ordinance for doLible frontage lots, (32,7.9.711), both landscaping reqijimments mnst be -niet. ReviselaiidscapQ plantbrthe C twxnhon.i.es to also in.eet the Screening •eqtjirej.n.-1nts of t1i.e. ordinxi.ce pursuant to Section 321.7.9,7 (a-' b. c, d. an.d e)_ Rev L Coniment addressed. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14-41.11, 14-419, 32.7.9.7] Also, the approved road plan [K)B2007000771] contains a landscaping plan f6r the Townhouse section of the development whic-b appears to ineet the street tree requirements (if the ordhiaf.)ce along Rio Road East and Penfield Lane: hm,vever, neither the proposed site plan nor the approved road plans, landscaping for the 'fownhotise section . meets the Screening reqtdroments of the ordin,ance for dotible frontage lots. Once the townhonies' landscaping plan on the site plan has been revised and approved. the road plan's landscapin.p sheer fir the 4.- townhol.I.I.L, secti.o.11should be amended to.niatcb. the site plan prior to linat site pi an approval. E'evise. fhe road plans wi * 11 need to be revised to match the landscaping shown on the site plan. Sub.ndt an amendment to the road plan for review and approval. Rev2. Comment acknowledged by applicant and requests this takes place prior to approval of the subdivision plat dividing the TH units. The road-planswill need to be revised..to match the landscaping shown on the.. siteplan. 4. 132.5,2(11). Condition of Approval, (dong streets. The required parking spaces from the towilhorne kits 35 -4-1. acre adjacent -U.'i Lot 34. When ears park in these spaecs at night their lieadlights will shine, directly onto 1'..,ot 3,1 and P otentially other lots in the development, Staff undenstailds That street landseaping Nvas not depicted.n.or require(] in. this area an, the approved road plans because of conflicts with. the sanitary SeNver line e-asetnetits in this same location, Floiveve'r Uipon review of the tovvnhonles p-roposed parking staff feets that sorne alternative such as evergreCT) shrubs ofevergreen trees be placed in file open space across from Lots 35 -,11 to limit hilpacts, oft e require parking for the townlionies, Section '32.7.9. 5(e)'3 provides Ibr the agent to authorize diff'orent handscapin,g> designs to rnininlize impact of the parking area. Revise, Rev L Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] The Right of Way Vacation plat should be approved and recorded prior to the final site plan being approved. Once approved and recorded revise the final site plan to include DB Page #s for the recorded plat. Rev 3. Comment acknowledged by applicant. See comment #24 as it relates to thisplat 6.. [Condition of Approval. 32.5.2(a)] 0.irrent property owlier information lbr'Blocks A and'B as listed oil the site plan (note t'l) do not match that in Couiltv'I"ax Records. ­1, lie.1313 page references min.lbers provided in generat -note 43 does ji.at reflect Rio Rd Holding� ' LLC as the owner. County Tax Records indicate that the owner of Block A. (TMP 061A 1-01-OA-0011 00.) as Marvin and Carolyn Spencer and tile owner at' Block B (TNIP 061 Al _014,M- 00100) as Albert and I....isa Spaaar. Revise ap.propriately and clarit'v, tile mv-nership itiforination. Rev 2. Coniment addressed. While the sidevvallis; Fronting [Condition of Approval, 32.3.6.i, j Blocic A and B which front 1"reesdale Wav and Stonelienoe .va.v have been extended to meet the property lines shared with I'llesesidewalks sliotild not abruptly oil(] rather they should have CG -1?' A1:)A accessible ramps to the street for per-sons with mobility impa.117rient. Revise. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 9, [Condition of.Approval,32.5.2(n)l Oil spaces alongC'J"reeschile Way and - Stonehenge Wky are depicted with dimetisiom: however. there are -no parking signs or - parroting stripes, to the spacesi"'area for the spaces, On the plan provide the paint striping or parking sigplage to designatle the parking area to the public, Revi8e. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 9. [Corninent] Upon a -recent site visit it vvas observ—Ul that the -1,11trance of Hie, 30' (3'reej.lw ay- .access and tr,.x -alk StormvN-'ater Manag.Ment Maintenance Easement does not currently connect to tile existing side" ("rontina Treesdal(� Way. When is this to be paved.9 Rev 2. Per the applicant the greenway mail will be tied into the existing, Sidewalk with t.he construction. of the improvements .for the'l'.H. Inlits. 10. [Commexit] Also. there is as portion ofthe Greenway Access and StOrff) Water MMU127ffnent ' ain tCnanCe Easen-jent located on St.ollowaler's Propetly,"llich,was not built/paved, specificallythe 12, portion ofthe e0CMCD,t which. connects to "Freesdale (1).1339321'498 ), 1-his segmentileeds to be paved to provide Treesdale residents access to the greenway. When. is this to be paved') Rev 2. Per the applicant they are working with Treesdale to determine who will make the fie-ill coullectiom 11. [Cornment] plarl does, not match tile TiOlt of way vacation. plat that is Lander review, by tile Couilly. Specifically the plat depicts Stonehenge Way and Treesdale W ay, as also pro used. tc)be-red:rice(t(tc)vv nto 44' rigli.t of way casenlems.1,he site PIMI depicts Wily Pell field LaDe befil - red.oced dove -n to 44* but neglects to include the tNvo internal private roads. Revise ".xp lain. Rev 2. Comment addressed. Comment, 317.9,8(b)] Aa.y plantings I.I.ot over aflej 1.0 -v airs cannot be c;ota),Ied towards the canopy requirement. Revise the tree callopy calcidatiom to remove tile shrubs:f"rom the tocat that will not reach as maw,rity of 5. tall, ,Rev- 2. Comment addressed. 13, [Conimentj Tile site plan does not appear to match the right of ,kay vacation plant that is under review by the County, Specifically tile 6' landscape strip along Penfield. Lane. "I"be- site plan depicts 4'- of the 6' landscape strip as being added to the loltoobtain the reqL6red setbacks, I)o vever. this S[IfILI]d truly dL-pict the entire 6- landscape strip as being eonsumed by the lot. It appears thc1ttfiC pUblie road is Truly only ,10" FC/T`C which essentially- straddles VDOT with 2 of the landscape strip to maintain-Re evise/ xptain. Rev 2. Comment L'eknowledged by t�, y applicant. Please be oware that the maintenance agreementfior the sidewalk and the entire 6' planting strip will be required with the R/W vacalion plat. 14. [Comment] Stoncheng Way an.d 'reesdale Way are also Mig reduced down to 44" rl,glets ofway. Ho�vever_ the notation for the rights of w-ay still reads 52T. Rev ise/explain. Rev 2. Comment addressed. New Comments 15. 14.1..1..1] 1'. )ecks may projed 'riot -niore 1hin 1bur (1) :feet into any required yard. -provided ill.m no ,;-uch feature s1lall be located closer than six (6)f.'ect -to any lot line. It'appears that the .. decks associated with. Block A project slightly rno•e. tluin 4' into the required front Y',ITd.. specifically it appears they all. enCT0,1uh 4 4�' into the frontyard setback,1"his is half a foot over the perniitted 1011,Q,111 orperi-nissible encroachment, Redtice the decks in Block..A so they do not encroach past 44' into the required 1)"Ont yard setback., "I"o w-.,sure this is inet', on the plan provide anote which states how mach encroachment each deck is into the froill. Yard setback_.Rev 3. Cominent addressed. 16. [32.7.9.7(e)] Screening of Double Frontage Lots. 'The site propo ;es tics install as Eist, however. the plan neglects to make .note of the material type of:'the f�jlcel or the height ofthe I:ej.ice- On. the plan provide this in-forination. For screening purposes the -fenco shall be a miniawin of 6' tall, Rev 3. Comment addressed with 41 fence and 10 - 151 landscape strip w/ planting for screening purposes. See comment #23 below as it relates to the landscaping option chosen by the applicant. 177. [Commentl Onstle-let 1 at the top left of the page there is "Note" which contains as typographical error which. references.13 lo%-nhouse lots. To avoid conftrion revise, thi.s, note to provide tile correct.numberof townhouse lots (1.41). Rev 3. Comment addressed. .18. [Commend O.n. the phin the acreages for the tovmhouse logs do not seem to be conli-jig out correctly? N*ainely the c over sheet and the landscaping sheet make note that the total acreage. fbi: the tovv-j.lhou,,-.,1e lots is 33 Owever, sheet 3 lists Block B as 1.6. 7 ,79�� SF which is 0."gAorcs. 14 466 SF and Block A as 20,0 i 0 SF which when combined cosmos out to a -total of 36 ,536 SF whieb is 83 Acres. Please cladfv this incollsisteTicy as it affects the CaT)0pyrequjremeats of the site. Revise. Rev 3. Comment- kddressed. 19. [317.9.8(a)31 7 Fee ('anopy. On the landscaping plan, sheet 5. the townhouse site attempts to utilize 10% C19:11OPY C21OL1121iOnS., h0wever, the site is a Residential U :,so of 10 ol,Nvelling imits; per acre or less (3,68 D'I JA). Thus the MilliMUM tree CarlOpVfOr this site is twenty (20) percent. Revise appropriately. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 20 Co . niment] Oil the landscaping plan, sheet 5, in flle'Plam Schedule, under Qwixitiky of Plarits, the qUeITAft)f of plants does not match the actmal. nun.lber of plan.fingS, shov�--n on the plan fbr W.A) Plavinus Acerilblia, ,*hick is listed as quantity 4; however, 12 plantings were lbund. Revise a p propriately,.Rev 3. Corninent addressed 2 2 1 -L [('.'ommentJ On flic landscaping plan clearly depict the sight distance c,,isei.n.e its toassiire that there is no C - conflict in proposed. tree planing localions. This will also help to assure VDOT's 41" comment is adequatelv addres,.;,ed. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 21 '1 19il inches in height is yen )[wited. On the landscapinjg- phan sheet 5. in the Phult Schedule, under Size of I'lat-tts.tliesiz-.oftli-v shrub sfroiiti.ii<yPetif.- told Lwae,IV-P�eaVirl:ritiica 'l-lenry's Qui)et' are all listed as , t 'se shall bea minimuni (if 18'T when planted. Revise plan to assure they are 18" at 181". Howevej he 2 a inillimmil, when planted. Rev 3. Comment addressed. NEW COMMENT 23. [32.7.9.9(d), 32.5.2(n), 32.7.9.7(e)] Installation and Maintenance of Required Landscaping and Screening. For the required screening along Rio Road and Penfield Lane provide the dimensions of the landscape easements that these plantings are to be located in and label them on the plan. Also, prior to final site plan approval the easements shall be set to record with a maintenance agreement approved by the County Attorney. Prior to final site plan approval on the plan provide the Deed Book and Page reference number of these recorded easements. Staffsuggests the applicant depict these easements on the Right of Way Vacation plat (SUB2013 -181) or the final subdivision plat (SUB201400049). Also assure to provide a maintenance agreement for the County Attorney to review OR assure that the previous Covenants and Restrictions document covers the additional landscaping easements and then set that plat and legal document to record. 24. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. The Right of Way Vacation plat (SUB2013 -181) depicts Open Space Easements for Landscaping and Sidewalk Maintenance. These easements should be labeled and dimensioned on the site plan. Revise. 25. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, on the revised plan the landscaping for Block B fronting Rio Rd depicts 4 (PA) Platanus Acerifolia plants as full circles; however, throughout the plan they are depicted as circles with swiss cheese edges. Simply assure that the 4 PA plantings fronting Rio Rd are correctly labeled to be circles with swiss cheese edges. There is no need to change plantings as they are correctly labeled as (UP) Ulmus Parvifolia elsewhere on the plan, just assure the 4 PA's in question are labeled correctly. This is merely to avoid confusion when inspectors are inspecting the site. Revise appropriately. If you have a question about this, please call me. 26. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, on the revised plan the area fronting Rio Rd for both Block A and Block B are labeled as "LAWN'; however, with the revised plantings and required landscape easements, are these areas to remain as lawns? If not, revise the sheet to omit the "LAWN" note. Revise if appropriate. 27. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, remove the last 5 (IC) Ilex Cornuta plantings which are closest to Penfield Lane as they hinder access from the 30' Greenway Easement to the sidewalk. The rest of these plantings shall remain. Revise. VDOT— Troy Austin - See attached comments dated 3- 19 -14. Engineering Comments — Michelle Roberge - Per 3 -25 -14 conversation with Michelle Roberge comments are pending her review of the recently submitted Road Plan revisions (SUB2014 -47) and the recently submitted Final Subdivision Plat (SUB2014 -49). ACSA — Alex Morrison - Per 3 -26 -14 email the plans are not yet approved. ACSA is waiting on the R/W dedication of Stonewater before they approve the Townhomes plan. Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperezQalbemarle.org or 434 -296- 5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions. �r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.. Commissioner March 19, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP -2013 -00067 Stonewater Townhomes -- Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017/13 with revisions dated 10/111 /13, 12/30/13,1/29/13, 2/10f13, and 3/10113 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments: I . We met with the Traffic Engineer for the Culpeper District on 3./18/14 to discuss the potential traffic signal at the intersection of Penfield Lane and Rio Road. Traffic engineering will provide a preliminary layout for a traffic signal at this location to give an indication of the adequacy of the proposed right -of -way at the intersection to accommodate the necessary equipment for a traffic signal. In addition, traffic engineering will check the warrant for a traffic signal at this location based on safety concerns with the existing intersection. 2. The 10' wide sidewalk shown along Penfield Lane may need to be modified in order to accommodate potential signal poles and/or equipment. 3. The alignment of the CG -12's at the intersection may need to be adjusted to better accommodate pedestrian crossing at the intersection. The CG -12's should better encourage pedestrian traffic towards Penfield Lane. 4. The warranf analysis appears to not consider traffic generated by Treesdale, Stonehenge, and Lochlyn Hills/Pen Park Lane. Each of these areas will certainly contribute to traffic at the intersection. 5. An easement and a maintenance agreement need to be provided for the sidewalk along Penfield Lane. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, l f. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING A( A COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner March 19, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -00067 Stonewater Townhomes -- Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the final site plan for Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017113 with revisions dated 10 /11113, 12130/13, 1129113, 2110/13, and 3110113 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments: 1. We met with the Traffic Engineer for the Culpeper District on 3118114 to discuss the potential traffic signal at the intersection of Penfield Lane and Rio Road. Traffic engineering will provide a preliminary layout for a traffic signal at this location to give an indication of the adequacy of the proposed right -of -way at the intersection to accommodate the necessary equipment for a traffic signal. In addition, traffic engineering will check the warrant for a traffic signal at this location based on safety concerns with the existing intersection. 2. The 10' wide sidewalk shown along Penfield Lane may need to be modified in order to accommodate potential signal poles and/or equipment. 3. The alignment of the CG -12's at the intersection may need to be adjusted to better accommodate pedestrian crossing at the intersection. The CG -12's should better encourage pedestrian traffic towards Penfield Lane. 4. The warrant analysis appears to not consider traffic generated by Treesdale, Stonehenge, and Lochlyn Hills/Pen Park Lane. Each of these areas will certainly contribute to traffic at the intersection. 5. An easement and a maintenance agreement need to be provided for the sidewalk along Penfield Lane. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, r� Troy ustin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 March 6, 2014 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP-2013-67 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Final Dear Sir: Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 2-10-14) against applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below: [Condition of Approvall Miring the initial sitbrnittal and review of the preliminary sLibdivision plat L [4IJ132005-24, I j fbi, this prqjed the applicant requested [hat all defaiiN having to do i•llh #.,e iou,rihouse lots i and all irifi-astructuri.; necessarv, to Serve it 14'ould be (h.,,udt with fif thie ji.,vire siu, plan siage of the devehyvnerul. T. these itelms became ConditioT-is of approval. The cLirre nt sLibndttalis.riov in. the site Phni stac, of re­vlew. thLisstaff has included all applicable cc�yrnjneilts fior the tov�-' i ( s __ e ll� Ill raise lots—Rev 1. Comment addressed. [32.5.2(11. Condition of Approval, 14-401, 1.4-41.9. 32.7.9.7.1 ol'Double F. co sage Lors Do uble fi-oniage residential lots s ha I I be screened be! �L-een the rt.., of the residences W.Id the pU blic rio,- it-of- ",av"Purstiani to Section 14-149 the required screeninlul sliall be dictated. by the requirenlenis of Sectiol.) 32.7.9.7, 1, he propmed landscaping depicted, on Rio *Road East and. Penfield Larte appears to meet lbe Street "Free reqtdrements of the ordinance (322.7.9,5) but does not ineet the Screening requirenients of the orditiance for dOUble lots (317,93). both landscaping requiren.i.etit,, imist be niet. Revise landscapeplant for the townhornes to also meet the Screenifig requtirements of the ordinance piirsuant. to Section '.32.7.9,7(a., b, 0, d. and e'). Rev 1. Comment addressed, 1:32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14-401, 14-499, 32.7.9.71 Also. the approved -road plan I'St.j.132007000-77.1 coatainsa lar.idscapijig plan for the ToN-vnhoiise section. of ihe development'' Which appears to meet thestreet tree requirements of the ordinancealo.rig Rio.Road.Easuuid Penfielcll.,ane. hmvever. neither -the proposed site plan nor -the approved road phn.)s" laridscaping 11)r the Tomininywse section ineets the Screerling recl air nents of lots. Ilie site plan has been revised. and approved. the road plan's the to�vnhon.ie section to be revised to inatch the la tidsca ping shown on the site p larat Submit' an a inend guent to the road plait for review and approval. Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant and requests this takes place prior to approval of the subdivision plat dividing the TH units. The road plans will need to be revised to match the landscaping shown on the site plan. 1,32.5.2(p), Condition of .Approval, along slr eels. "1 °he recltiired parking span c;s f rcnnn the tovv nlaome lcnts :3 i -4 7 area alcijatcent to l.,ot 1. �+ l�etr az: 13a. °k in thc�.se sl,�tces tit t�i�;h their headlights will shine directly onto L.ot 34 and potentially other lots in the development. S4ar1T tnderstarld,., that street laart.dscapi.ng was not. depicted nor re%ttainxi in this area on the approved road plans becaatase of con.11icts with. th.e• sallit.al-y' sewer line; easements in this saarne location, . l.f. ?'# ever 14port rei'1i:w Of tlne; tt >vvrnlncnrtnes l;roposeti panrkitng stattt` t.�e =.1s t.lnaat scsrrt.�°. allte':rtl<atn:vYe st:icln aas e;ve;rgre;era. slnrtalns of av�•r� >r�:e;lz trees lie; placed in the open space across t:i•otn Lots )5 -i 1. to limit impacts of the require parking for the for tnlncarrne s. Section tiora :g?.?.£).. ') provides is €ar ttao as ,ent to awhorize different laa dscap ng; d sl�rls to minimise innpac,t of the parking area. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. se . 5. [32.5.2(a)] The Right of Way Vacation plat should be approved and recorded prior to the final site plan being approved. Once approved and recorded revise the final site plan to include DB Page #s for the recorded plat. Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 6 l ondillon of Approval, 32.5.2(a)l Ciirre•ra property owner i.11t:sarlaaazt.i.t:aln .star Blocks A. w..I l 11 as listed i:sted on thy. site; p[an (nate 4 .1.) do not match that in Caaunty '.Fax :[records. The 1:x:1:3 page; references nu.nnibers provided in ge;,nt.eral tame: N "3 does not retlect Rio Rd l- Iol.ding. l IX' is the owner. C ouanty'1 <ax Records indicate that the owner of Block A (TNIP 061 A] - {)1 -OA-001 00) as Marvin and Carolyn Spencer and the owner of Block B (11 NIP 061 Al -0 1- 0 13 - 00 100.) as Albert atnd :[.,isa Spaaaar. Revise appropriately and clarify the ownership 2. C:;omme at < addressed. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.0, 32.7.2,3(a)(c).j :`�hj� n rm%:5' alone st:re ets. While The sidewalks fronting BlocK- A and l.3 which front 'l "i•€ esda:le Way and Stonehenge way have been extended to meet the prgperty limes shared with :Stondien -ae and l re scla lc;. "l "he;se sidewalks should not. abruptly rend rather they shontldhave C'C; -1 2: A:),., accessible; ranips to the street fior persons with. mobility impairranent Revise.. Rev 2. Comineni addressed. 8. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.2(n)] On the plan four (4) required guest spaces along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way are depicted with dimensions; however, there are no parking signs or painting stripes to mark/designate the spaces /area for the spaces. On the plan provide the paint striping or parking signage to designate the parking area to the public. Revise. Rev 2. Comment not addressed. 9. JC'ornnient] 1. pons. a recent site visit it vas observed that the entraltice of tlte: w,t }' Green way Access at.nd torrrivv<lter:i lava; .rraetnt Maintenance l: ass nnetnt does riot c tirrentl v connect to the e. istitng side walk 91•onting Treesdale Way. When is this to be paved? Rev 2. Per the applicant the greenway trail will be tied into the existing sidewalk with the construction of the improvements for the TH units. 10. lCQtmmentl .:also, there is a, portion of the G'rewmlva.y access and StoranNa:t.er Ma.naagemen't Maintenance Easement located on :Stotnmvater's property- vv,liich ,%va.s not built "pa:ved, specifically the 12' portion of the; easement �.vhich connects to Treesdale (1: B3932PG498). This segment needs to be paved to provide -Treesdale; residents access to the greernv-ay. When is this to be paved? Rev 2. Per the applicant they are working with Treesdale to determine who will make the tie -in connection. 11. lConnnentl The site: plan does not match the right of cvay vacation. plat that. is minder re vievav by the C;ottrrl.ty. lneciticaa[[ ° tl.te plate depicts Ste?inelnert ;e I 'ate- atinci T.reescla[e W iy ats also lnrcnposed to be lLdticed dove °rn to 44" right of way site Islam depicts oral:? Pen-field 1..ane being reduced down to 44' but neglects, to include the two internal private roads. Revise /ex:plain. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 12. [Comore uL 32.7,M(br .j Any plarain gs not over 5' at: er 10 years cannot be cc.3atnted to - ards th. canopy rnaaturity c f5' trill, Rev 2. C.;trmmea:t addressed. 1:3. [Coin mentI 'T'he site; plaan does not appear to match the ri llt of way vacation plat that. k under re;vies�.vbythe; Cotnanty. Speciticaliv the 6' landscape strip along Penfield Lane. °1.he site plain demists =l' ot`t:hL b" .laandscape strip as being , added to the. lot to obtain the.ra ILdred setbacks. however. this ShOUld truly depict the entire 6' landscape strip :is boirig consumed by the, lo`i. It appears that t1w public road is truly only 40' FC::':l'C tivbich essentially straddles V1:.01' with 2' of'the land cape: strip to maintain. R.evise./ .Xpla.Irl. Rev 2. Comment acknowledged by applicant. Please be aware that the maintenance agreement for the sidewalk and the entire 6' planting strip will be required with the R/W vacation plat. 14. [Comment] Storrehenge Wry and "l"reesdale Way are also being reduced dozen to44' rights of way. l:la�v-ever, the notation .for the rights of way still reads 52 °. Revise/explain. Rev 2. Comment addressed. New Comments 15. [4.11.1] Decks may project not more than four (4) feet into any required yard; provided that no such feature shall be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line. It appears that the decks associated with Block A project slightly more than 4' into the required front yard; specifically it appears they all encroach 4.5' into the front yard setback. This is half a foot over the permitted length or permissible encroachment. Reduce the decks in Block A so they do not encroach past 4' into the required front yard setback. To assure this is met; on the plan provide a note which states how much encroachment each deck is into the front yard setback. 16. [32.7.9.7(e)] Screening of Double Frontage Lots. The site proposes to install a fence along Rio Road East; however, the plan neglects to make note of the material type of the fence or the height of the fence. On the plan provide this information. For screening purposes the fence shall be a minimum of 6' tall. 17. [Comment] On sheet 3, at the top left of the page there is a "Note" which contains a typographical error which references 13 townhouse lots. To avoid confusion revise this note to provide the correct number of townhouse lots (14). 18. [Comment] On the plan the acreages for the townhouse lots do not seem to be coming out correctly? Namely the cover sheet and the landscaping sheet make note that the total acreage for the townhouse lots is 33,795 SF which is 0.78Acres. However, sheet 3 lists Block B as 16,466 SF and Block A as 20,070 SF which when combined comes out to a total of 36,536 SF which is .83 Acres. Please clarify this inconsistency as it affects the canopy requirements of the site. Revise. 19. [32.7.9.8(a)3] Tree Canopy. On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, the townhouse site attempts to utilize 10% canopy calculations; however, the site is a Residential Use of 10 dwelling units per acre or less (3.68 DUA). Thus the minimum tree canopy for this site is twenty (20) percent. Revise appropriately. 20. [Comment] On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, in the Plant Schedule, under Quantity ofPlants, the quantity of plants does not match the actual number of plantings shown on the plan for (PA) Platanus Acerifolia, which is listed as quantity 4; however, 12 plantings were found. Revise appropriately. 21. [Comment] On the landscaping plan clearly depict the sight distance easements to assure that there is no conflict in proposed tree planting locations. This will also help to assure VDOT's 4t` comment is adequately addressed. 22. [32.7.9.7(c)] Shrub height. Shrubs relied upon for screening purposes shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) inches in height when planted. On the landscaping plan, sheet 5, in the Plant Schedule, under Size of Plants, the size of the shrubs fronting Penfield Lane, IV - Itea Virginica 'Henrys Garnet', are all listed as 12 " -18". However these shall be a minimum of 18" when planted. Revise plan to assure they are 18" at a minimum when planted. V ilV 1— 11 VJ' AUaLIM - See attached comments. Engineering Comments — Michelle Roberge -See attached comments. ACSA — Alex Morrison - See attached comments. Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez@albemarle.ora or 434 -296- 5832 ext. 3443 for further information or if you have questions. :,t_� E 4411�EY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Vrglnia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner February 26, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -67 Stonewater Townhomes — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the Final Site Plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 10 /7 /13 with revisions dated 10 /11 /13, 12/30113, 112904, and 2/10/14 and offer the following comments: 1. The street trees shown along Penfield Lane and Rio Road need to be located at least 30' from the end of radius at each intersection as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual so that intersection sight distance is not impacted. 2. With the proposed reduction in right -of -way along Penfield Lane, additional drainage easement is necessary to provide coverage for the storm sewer, including the drop inlets, i.e., STR -S18. 3. ' Verification from our Traffic section that the proposed right -of -way at the intersection of Penfield Lane and Rio Road is adequate to accommodate the potential traffic signal for the Rio Road and Penfield Lane intersection is pending. 4. Easement and a maintenance agreement need to be provided for the sidewalk along Penfield Lane. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING A�FSL { alt I �a ilt�;TN�� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: Date of comments: Reviewer: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Collins Engineering [434- 293 -3719] Marvin & Carolyn Spencer 11 Feb 2013 28 Feb 2013 Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300067. Please see the following comments. I have also included my comments from the initial site plan SDP201300055. A. Site Development Plan — Initial Site Plan (SDP201300055) 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. [Initial Site Plan] Comment not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed townhomes will require a signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park, but provide a signal warrant analysis per VDOT comments. [Final Site Plan] The traffic signal warrant analysis was provided. Due to the existing sight distance on Rio Rd E at the crest vertical curve, providing a signal will be much safer for the residents. Further discussion with VDOT is necessary to discuss the safety concerns at the intersection. 2; . lit` ,ide -vyal to the �'E?t,.t1 }I €3'i li`.� t t?i.ipL .•ieesda e Wm `r €'nd StoIli is 'Ct-c Wo' i5 .not LI[1.if6 ill t' }il'OLKH)CiUt the NltirC la'ii£7t'Yi, It. iof_; oLlt. tiler) 'ro i es € ver mediia'ri5 t)cCii`f en ea h 0.., '.)IiS)w icle�- lll. to tie into lleiiti€;lcl l:..<aDe. ( ""n arnent addressed. 3) €::.I u•if �n,bat wi.:l.l be in the median between ir.ac h lot. Comment addre�,,%e . 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. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. i "II.a.ere its an exis't.in.a €i- Verb.ea €i electric hn.e runrai.no through the pro €zhed t.lie new location n € fee €°ti`ic line ° iii€e it will be sari € b truc:'t'i€ n wl,)e.ii t€ wlil oInes ,ire. !hilt. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 AP.P.1-cantstated during the Site .Rey ie meefing or—November 2L 201.3 tWtt the overhead eleclri• lire M11 be replaced -with an undergrounel eleTtric line. The applicantstates in Feb -9, 201.4 response letter that ioverhead line has been removed. 0) Sho ,v CG- 12 near :lot:.,; 41 an 42 from Pefifidd. 1,anw' conmient addressed 7) sol)i'c' existirig itell)" r)ced' to be or reri'iovvd., Address H)e ' €I fJwi'rig: n g a) W ay. jtistacross Proposed olument addressed. b) A. poriion of J:ence acrosh Stoi)c[wney Way Jot 4.7 has been-removed—I'lleaso reillove orl Plans, ('.'omRneW addressed. There is a retairlina oiffli of N.61dirig in and inch'Ide existiarz Eraditw. and this See. WP02011.1- " COM'", 88 silice the po-� ropC� � ours appear to be oxiscii.i.e. 1"ho pr(>posed y%vale for at. thisiare.i ��--H I cliaiigeshgl-aly to tie to eNistil.ig comoi.[N. I' CowuneW addressed. 8) A WPO .ipplication shali be stjbTriifted for flit propo-.sed townhollles. The couli'fY records., s'how iris: ilsuires -for ti-le pmposed ioivnl)oale "ire not iticluicled since it 11--a4 coiisidenA fulture dc,velopmem is notdraij.1.11q, to the cnhao.ced exlended cietention polld. Please 6,iri-ly in WN'.) Comment a,ddres ed. A W.P() applicad'ou has been sulomitted and is EV.whag revicrved' 9) If applicable, revise Road Plan. [Initial Site Plan] It appears that a portion of the Penfield Lane RIW is being reduced. If this is approved, road plans need to reflect this change. Also, landscaping and other road plan items revised on this final site plan will need to be reflected on a road plan. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. B. Site Development Plan —Final Site Plan (SDP201300067) 1) The proposed sanitary sewer line is underneath all driveways. I recommend not driveways. Please address. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. I discussed with ACSA. Waterline easements on both Stonehenge Way and Rio Road are causing space constraints for sanitary sewer lines. The only suitable location for sanitary sewer is underneath the driveways. 2) It does not appear that you have adequate space for the roof drain easements. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 3) It appears that runoff is draining towards lot 43 & 44. Please drain away from bldg or capture runoff. I recommend placing spot elevations where patio landing meets sidewalk for lots 43- 48. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 4) Deck dimensions are shown. Is this directly above the patio shown. Clarify dimensions since patio dimensions do not match. . [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. Sincerely, ...................... Michelle Roberge Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:49 AM To:. Christopher Perez Subject: SDP201367: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Site Plan Chris, The construction drawing are currently under review by Jeremy Lynn. I will advise once approval is granted. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (F) 434 - 979 -0698 Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:49 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: SDP201367: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Site Plan Chris, The construction drawing are currently under review by Jeremy Lynn. I will advise once approval is granted. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (0) 434 - 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (F) 434 - 979 -0698 �pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [434- 293 -3719] Owner or rep.: Marvin & Carolyn Spencer Plan received date: 11 Feb 2013 Date of comments: 28 Feb 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300067. Please see the following comments. I have also included my comments from the initial site plan SDP201300055. A. Site Development Plan — Initial Site Plan (SDP201300055) 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. [Initial Site Plan] Comment not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed townhomes will require a signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park, but provide a signal warrant analysis per VDOT comments. [Final Site Plan] The traffic signal warrant analysis was provided. Due to the existing sight distance on Rio Rd E at the crest vertical curve, providing a signal will be much safer for the residents. Further discussion with VDOT is necessary to discuss the safety concerns at the intersection. 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. Comment addressed. 3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot. Comment addressed. 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. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. 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. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 Applicant stated during the Site Review meeting on November 21, 2013 that the overhead electric line will be replaced with an underground electric line. The applicant states in Feb 5, 2014 response letter that overhead line has been removed. 6) Show CG -12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove on plans. Comment addressed. 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 WP02011- 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. Comment addressed. 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 WP0201 0-11 (Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO application. Comment addressed. A WPO application has been submitted and is being reviewed. 9) If applicable, revise Road Plan. [Initial Site Plan] It appears that a portion of the Penfield Lane R/W is being reduced. If this is approved, road plans need to reflect this change. Also, landscaping and other road plan items revised on this final site plan will need to be reflected on a road plan. [Final Site Plan] Comment acknowledged by applicant. As discussed with Planning, the road plans will need to be approved prior to the approval of the subdivision plat. B. Site Development Plan — Final Site Plan (SDP201300067) 1) The proposed sanitary sewer line is underneath all driveways. I recommend not placing it under driveways. Please address. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. I discussed with ACSA. Waterline easements on both Stonehenge Way and Rio Road are causing space constraints for sanitary sewer lines. The only suitable location for sanitary sewer is underneath the driveways. 2) It does not appear that you have adequate space for the roof drain easements. Please address. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 3) It appears that runoff is draining towards lot 43 & 44. Please drain away from bldg or capture runoff. I recommend placing spot elevations where patio landing meets sidewalk for lots 43- 48. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. 4) Deck dimensions are shown. Is this directly above the patio shown. Clarify dimensions since patio dimensions do not match. [Final Site Plan] Comment addressed. Sincerely, r&vde-- Michelle Roberge R � V COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Uirglnia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner February 26, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -67 Stonewater Townhomes — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the Final Site Plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017113 with revisions dated 10!11113, 12130113, 1129114, and 2110114 and offer the following comments: 1. The street trees shown along Penfield Lane and Rio Road need to be located at least 30' from the end of radius at each intersection as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual so that intersection sight distance is not impacted. 2. With the proposed reduction in right -of -way along Penfield Lane, additional drainage easement is necessary to provide coverage for the storm sewer, including the drop inlets, i.e., STR -S18. 3. Verification from our Traffic section that the proposed right -of -way at the intersection of Penfield Lane and Rio Road is adequate to accommodate the potential traffic signal for the Rio Road and Penfield Lane intersection is pending. 4. Easement and a maintenance agreement need to be provided for the sidewalk along Penfield Lane. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �I�'�rill� 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 February 5, 2014 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2013 -67 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Final Dear Sir: Department of Community Development has reviewed the above referenced site plan (dated 12- 30 -13) against applicable codes and ordinances. Comments are provided below: [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. Comment addressed. 2. [32.5.2(p), Condition of Approval, 14 -401, 14 -419, 32.7.9.7] 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). Comment addressed. [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. The road plans will need to be revised to match the landscaping shown on the site plan. Submit an amendment to the road plan for review and approval. 4. [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 evergreen 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. Comment addressed. 5. [32.5.2(a)] The Right of Way Vacation plat should be approved and recorded prior to the final site plan being approved. Once approved and recorded revise the final site plan to include DB Page #s for the recorded plat. 6. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.2(a)] 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 #3 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- 0 1 -OB- 00100) as Albert and Lisa Spaaar. Revise appropriately and clarify the ownership information. 7. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.6.1, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks along streets. While the sidewalks fronting Block A and B which front Treesdale Way and Stonehenge way have been extended to meet the property lines shared with Stonehenge and Treesdale. These sidewalks should not abruptly end rather they should have CG -12/ ADA accessible ramps to the street for persons with mobility impairment. Revise. 8. [Condition of Approval, 32.5.2(n)] On the plan four (4) required guest spaces along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way are depicted with dimensions; however, there are no parking signs or painting stripes to mark/designate the spaces /area for the spaces. On the plan provide the paint striping or parking signage to designate the parking area to the public. Revise. 9. [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? 10. [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? 11. [Comment] The site plan does not match the right of way vacation plat that is under review by the County. Specifically the plat depicts Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way as also proposed to be reduced down to 44' right of way easements.The site plan depicts only Penfield Lane being reduced down to 44' but neglects to include the two internal private roads. Revise /explain. 12. [Comment, 32.7.9.8(b)] Any plantings not over 5' after 10 years cannot be counted towards the canopy requirement. Revise the tree canopy calculations to remove the shrubs from the total that will not reach a maturity of 5' tall. 13. [Comment] The site plan does not appear to match the right of way vacation plat that is under review by the County. Specifically the 6' landscape strip along Penfield Lane. The site plan depicts 4' of the 6' landscape strip as being added to the lot to obtain the required setbacks; however, this should truly depict the entire 6' landscape strip as being consumed by the lot. It appears that the public road is truly only 40' FC /FC which essentially straddles VDOT with 2' of the landscape strip to maintain. Revise /explain. 14. [Comment] Stonehenge Way and Treesdale Way are also being reduced down to 44' rights of way. However, the notation for the rights of way still reads 52'. Revise /explain. Engineering Comments — Michelle Roberge -See attached comments. ACSA — Alex Morrison - See attached comments. VDOT— Troy Austin - See attached comments. E911— Andrew Slack 1. Approved Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer - No objections Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox - No objections 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. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner January 28, 2014 Mr. Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SDP - 2013 -67 Stonewater Townhomes — Final Site Plan Dear Mr. Perez: We have reviewed the Final Site Plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 1017113 with revisions dated 10/11/13 and 12/30/13 and offer the following comments: 1. The street trees shown along Penfield Lane and Rio Road need to be located at least 30' from the end of radius at each intersection as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual so that intersection sight distance is not impacted. 2. It appears that a sight easement is necessary along Penfield Lane to ensure adequate sight distance at the intersection with Treesdale Way. 3. With the proposed reduction in right -of -way along Penfield Lane, additional drainage easement is necessary to provide coverage for the storm sewer, including the drop inlets. 4. Additional easement needs to be provided adequate to accommodate the potential traffic signal for the Rio Road and Penfield Lane intersection. 5. Easement and a maintenance agreement need to be provided for the sidewalk along Penfield Lane. If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, - —KA 4 Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Culpeper District WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING �pF A vt�r�1Q COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Stonewater Townhomes - Final Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [434- 293 -3719] Owner or rep.: Marvin & Carolyn Spencer Plan received date: 31 Dec 2013 Date of comments: 21 Jan 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP201300067. Please see the following comments. I have also included my comments from the initial site plan SDP201300055. A. Site Development Plan — Initial Site Plan (SDP201300055) 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. Comment not addressed. It does not appear that the proposed townhomes will require a signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park, but provide a signal warrant analysis per VDOT comments. 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. Comment addressed. 3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot. Comment addressed. 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. Comment not addressed. 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. Applicant stated during the Site Review meeting on November 21, 2013 that the overhead electric line will be replaced with an underground electric line. 6) Show CG -12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane. Comment addressed. 7) Some existing items need to be shown or removed. Address the following: Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 a) Show existing sidewalk along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way, just across proposed townhomes. Comment addressed. b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed. Please remove on plans. Comment addressed. 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 WP02011- 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. Comment addressed. 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 WP02010 -1 I(Treesdale Park), a portion of the townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond. Please clarify in WPO application. A WPO application has been submitted and is being reviewed. 9) If applicable, revise Road Plan. It appears that a portion of the Penfield Lane R/W is being reduced. If this is approved, road plans need to reflect this change. Also, landscaping and other road plan items revised on this final site plan will need to be reflected on a road plan. B. Site Development Plan — Final Site Plan (SDP201300067) 1) The proposed sanitary sewer line is underneath all driveways. I recommend not placing it under driveways. Please address. 2) It does not appear that you have adequate space for the roof drain easements. Please address. 3) It appears that runoff is draining towards lot 43 & 44. Please drain away from bldg or capture runoff. I recommend placing spot elevations where patio landing meets sidewalk for lots 43- 48. 4) Deck dimensions are shown. Is this directly above the patio shown. Clarify dimensions since patio dimensions do not match. Sincerely, Michelle Roberge Christopher Perez From: Alex Morrison [ amorrison @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:24 AM To: Christopher Perez Subject: SDP201367: Stonewater Townhmes - Final Site Plan Chris, The above referenced plan is currently under construction review by the ACSA. I will let you know once we grant construction approval. Thank you. Alexander J. Morrison, EIT Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 [434] 977 -4511 Ext. 116 (0) [434] 979 -0698 (F) Cori (runty Service A servfnq a Conserving ` Please consider the environment before printing this email.