HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900048 Legacy Document 2009-06-30COUNTYOF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434):296 =5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
June.29, 2009
Scott Collins, PE
Collins Engineering
800 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
'RE: SDP: 2009 -48 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Final
Dear Sir:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary
comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies,
as applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer)
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner)
Albemarle County Service Authority (ASCA)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911)- approved
Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) - no objection
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue- no objection
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)- no objection
Albemarle County Division of Inspections- pending
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be-considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that
could affect approval of the proposed project.
Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site
Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing
justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17"
copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached
comments of the Site Review Committee by July .13, 2009. Failure to submit this information by this
date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted
along with a reinstatement fee of $65.
Please. contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely, - --
Elizabeth M. Marotta, Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
�illl Illll�.�•
'COUNTY`OF ALBEMARLE
'Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia .22902 -4596
`Phone (434) 296 =5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
June 29, 2009
Scott Collins, PE
Collins Engineering
800 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP= 2009 -48 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan- Final
Dear Sir:
Department of CommunityDevelopment Zoning and Current Development has reviewed the site plan (dated
6/8/09) against applicable codes and ordinances. Zoning and Current Development comments are as follows:
1. This proposal has been submitted as a final prior to a preliminary. The ordinance contemplates the
approval of a preliminary site plan prior to the submittal of a fmal site plan. However, by interpretation the
ordinance does allow the submittal of a final prior to approval of a preliminary. No mechanism exists in
the ordinance for the County to approve with conditions a final site plan. Therefore, if the site plan does
not have all necessary approvals to allow signature by the revision deadline the County will deny your
application. You may request that this project be changed from a finalto a preliminary site plan which
may allow the County to approve the plan with conditions or you may-request that the County defer taking
a formal action on your application.
2. [32:5.6.x][4.11.3] Approval is required to reduce side setbacks from 15' to 10'. Please provide evidence
that Fire and Safety has approved the reduction of the side setback to 10'.
3. [32 :5.6.x] Setbacks listed on cover sheet do not match setbacks shown on the plan (S -1). Please revise to
be consistent. If you are providing a25' setback along Waterstone Lane, then please revise to read "front"
setback.
4. [32.5.6.4] Provide sheet number and total number of sheets. (For example, "Sheet 1 of 15 ")
5. [32.5.6.a] Revise revision block to EITHER: add this submittal as a revision to the original submittal, OR,
delete the revision noted and treat this plan as a first submittal.
6. - [32.5.6.a] Please provide adjacent uses on the-existing conditions sheet (E -1).
7. [32.5.6.a,c] Please clarify the limits of this site plan better. I see the box around the area on sheet S -1,
however it appears there are off -site improvements proposed. For example:
• The connection to Stonehenge is called out as "tie -in to existing pavement' ' and is shaded as
if it is part of this site plan.
• Please define the extent to which construction of the trail is to occur with this site plan; the
detail callout is outside of the box and no note is provided explaining to where the
construction shall extend. Also, the trail detail on sheet S-2 provides for a 10' wide trail and
the plan calls for an 8' trail. Please address this discrepancy and specify the paving material.
_• Please clearly define the limits of construction of Waterstone Drive /Stonewater Drive.
"Greying" lineweights for proposed improvements NOT included in this site plan may help to clarify some
of these issues.
8. [32.5.6.b,c] Please delineate the limits of demo and site work on sheets E -1 and E-2. Currently, it appears
that all tree removal and demo work is included in the scope of this site plan.
9. [32.5.6b] Provide the maximum acreage of the proposed use
Provide square footage of recreation area (trail area included in this site plan)
Provide acreage and % of open space provided
Provide amount of paved parking and circulation area
10. [32.5.6.H] Show limits of 100 -year floodplain on the plans. This is not required if the limits of the
floodplain are outside of the limits of this site plan, but the limits of clearing and demo must clearly show
that work is not included in this plan.
11. [32.5.6.i] Street names must be approved by E911 prior to final site plan approval.
12. [32.5.6.i] Clearly delineate where Waterston Lane ends and and Stonewater Drive begins. Street names
on sheets R -1 and R -2 are not consistent with names proposed on sheet S -1. Please revise.
13. [32.5.6.i] A private street maintenance agreement is required to be signed and approved prior to final site
plan approval.
14. [32:5.6.i] Please extend sidewalk to the property line shared with Stonehenge. If extending the street to tie -
into Stonehenge is part of this plan, please extend the sidewalk to the parking as well. Tempoarary
construction easements /agreements may be required.
15. [32.5.6.i] Please clarify why street is not extending to the property line shared with Treesdale.
16. [32.5.6.n] Proposed sidewalks along Rio Road, and apparently along Waterstone Lane, fall inside of
proposed private lots. Please provide easements and maintenance agreement information for these
sidewalks.
17. [32:5.6. n] Driveways appear to be varying dimensions. Provide all dimensions, include radii.
18. [32.5.6.n] Please clarify what the dimensions are that are roughly perpendicular to Waterstone Drive (23'
on the south, 24' on the north). They do not appear to be dimensioning to a particular line.
19. [32.5.6.n] Provide legend to paving materials on sheet S -1 and appropriate references to accurate details.
20. _[32;5.6.b] Provide appropriate curb ramp sidewalk details at intersections and where trail intersects with
Waterside Lane.
21. [32.5.6.n][32.6.6.j] Note #14 states that no outdoor lighting will emit more than 3000 lumens (and
therefore a lighting plan is not provided). This is fine; however, the County requires the following standard
note be on the plans. Please revise your note to read: "Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that
emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a fall- cutoff luminaire. The spillover from luminaires onto
public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half
footcandle."
22. [32.5.6.1] Please label landscape easement along western property line and provide instrument/reference.
23. [32.5.6.0] Please provide a General Note (on the Cover Sheet) pertaining to proposed utilities, ie. being
dedicated to public use. If streets are to be private, please note so on the cover sheet.
24. [32.5.6.p] You must provide a conservation plan checklist, in accordance with Sec. 32.7.9. If no trees are
proposed to be conserved within the area of this plan, the conservation plan is not required, however the
limits of tree removal need to be clearly delineated. to show that a conservation plan will not be needed..
25. [32.5.6.0] Trail easement has been approved (although not signed or recorded), therefore please provide
Emits of approved trail easement on the plan.
26. [32.5.6.p] Adjust left hand margins on sheet LL -1 so that landscape schedule and canopy calculation table
can be read when stapled in a set of plans.
27. [32.5.6.p] Remove shrubs from across the proposed trail and update callouts and landscape schedule.
28..[32.5.6.p] Provide instrument/reference for Landscape easement shown on sheet E -1.
29. [4.16] Please describe, provide details how you are providing /meeting the recreation area requirement.
The final site plan is subject to all -fmal site plan requirements (Zoning Ordinance Section 32.6). In
.addition -to Zoning and Current Development approval, the following departments and agencies must
also review and approve the final site plan. If you have not received comments from the following,
please contact-them directly to coordinate the review of the site plan:
30. [32.6.4.1] Final plan approval is subject to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Architectural Review Board. Please contact Margaret Maliszewski at 296 -583.2 ext. 3276.
31. Please note that Engineering has received the site plan and their review is underway.
32. E911 approval to include:
n• Review and approval of street names and other applicable items.
Please contact Andy-Slack at296 -5832.
33. Zoning & Current Development Engineering approval to include:
I• All applicable items as specified in the Design Standards Manual, Section 902B
34. Albemarle County Fire Rescue approval to include:
• Review and approval of fire flow and fire hydrant locations.
• Review and approval of proposed setback reductions.
Please note that I have not received comments or approval from this department. Please contact Fire
Rescue directly to coordinate their review of your project. Please contact James Barber at 296 -5833.
35: Albemarle County Service Authority_(ASCA) approval to include:
• Review of all final water and sewer plans.
Please note that I have not received comments or approval from this agency. Please contact ACSA directly
to coordinate their review of your project. Please contact Gary Whelan at 977 -4511.
36. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval to include:
• Review and approval of all road plans including drainage computation.
Please note that I have not received comments or approval from this agency. Please contact VDOT directly
to coordinate their review of your proj ect. Please contact Joel DeNunzio at 293 -0011 Ext. 120.
Sincerely,,
Elizabeth M. Marotta
Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
File: SDP - 2009 -48
Cc.
Rio Road Holdings LLC
1900 Arlington Boulevard Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
GF A�
K11'
� �RGIl�P
:County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 30 June.2009
-Subject: Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00048)
The final site plan for the Stonewater Townhomes has been reviewed. The engineering review for current
development can recommend approval to the plan after the following comments are addressed:
1. The road plan that was submitted with the subdivision plats has been approved. (SUB -
2007- 00077)
2. The ESC and SWM plans that were submitted with the subdivision have been approved;
however offsite easements are pending recordation. (WPO- 2007 - 00045) The approved
plans cover this site for both erosion and sediment control and stormwater management. If
this site plan is constructed well after the roads are in and all disturbed areas stabilized, an
additional ESC plan for the townhome area may be required by the ESC inspector.
3. The public Right -of -Way lines should match the recently submitted final plat and road
plans. The sidewalk along Rio Road should be 1 f within the public ROW.
4. The sidewalk behind the townhomes should be within an easement allowing for access to
and from the Stonehenge and Treesdale properties.
-5. Any modification to access easements, lot lines, and drainage easements should be
reflected in the final plat and road plans.
6. All driveways must have at least 18ft of pavement from the edge of the sidewalk. The
sidewalk cannot be obstructed by a parked vehicle.
7. The specs provided for the low - maintenance groundcover appear to be only temporary
measures. Please see table.3.37C of the VESCH for examples of acceptable
groundcovers.
8. Please remove all road plan sheets from this set. All roads were reviewed and approved
under application SUB- 2007 - 00077.
A�gn
} t
m
COMMONWEALTH of V1RQ1N1A
DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
DAVID S. EKERN, P -E.
COMMISSIONER
June 29, 2009
Mr. Glenn Brooks
.Department of Engineering and Development
401'MchAire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments July 2nd, 2009 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the JulyTd, 2009 Site-Review Committee
Meeting:
SDP- 2009 -00047 Wilcohess Final (Summer Frederick)
1. A fueling position is defined in the HE Trip Generation Manual as the number of
vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously. The existing situation for trip generation
shows 14-fueling positions but it appears that only 8 or 10 vehicles can fuel
simultaneously. This will decrease the existing trip generation to 1628 VPD assuming
there are 10 fueling positions. The new proposal shows ITE trip generation,at 4340
VPD. This is an increase of .2712 VPD which is above the amount of traffic necessary
for a Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Study.
2. This site currently is served by two entrances that neither meets the existing entrance
standards or the Access Management Regulation spacing standards for commercial
entrances.
3. This commercial entrance permit needs to be reevaluated in accordance with The
Land Use Permit Manual, 24VAC30 -150 -1680. The increase in traffic volume will
require this entrance to be brought to standard to retain the commercial entrance
permit. A new entrance will need to be shown and should be located as indicated in
the Places 29 plan. The entrance also needs to accommodate access for the adjacent
properties in accordance with the requirements of 24VAC30 -72 -120, Commercial
Entrance Access Management.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
4. Recommend that the minimum standards for entrances and access management being
adequately addressed as a condition of the site plan approval.
-SDP- 2009 -00048 Stonewater Townhomes -Site Plan -Final (Elizabeth Marotta)
1. The access is on a proposed private road of the subdivision and does not require
permitting from VDOT.
-SUB- 2009 -00088 Peter Jefferson Overlook, LLC -Final (Summer Frederick)
1. The existing 30 foot easement to Lot 1 should be evaluated for it's adequacy to serve
the proposed use in order to avoid the need for access to Route 250. Access to route
250 for Lot 1 may be in conflict with the Access Management Regulations.
Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If
you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with
the applicants.
Sincerely,
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 293 -0011
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Albemarle County
Service .Auth4raty
TO: Elizabeth Marotta
FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer
DATE: June.29, 2009
'RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Stonewater
SDP200900048
TM.61 -184
The below checked items apply to this site.
X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
X A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
X 2. An 18 inch water line is located approximately 40' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 160' distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future
easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and approved.
9. No plans are required.
X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval
prior to granting tentative approval.
-11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
X 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
'13. City of Charlottesville approval-for sewer.
Comments:'My understanding now is that the '18" RWSA water main is to remain
in place for the time being. Future relocation of this main will require existing
ACSA water customers on the east side of Rio Road to be reconnected. Water
meters are not allowed in the paved resident parking spaces.
The site plan does not show or. incorrectly shows:
meter locations water line size
waterline locations sewer line size -
sewer line locations expected wastewater flows
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville .* VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthorly.org
Albemarle
Service Auth►rity
Ong a cOMMn
easements expected water demands
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
Application-#: I 'SDP200900048 Short Review Comments
Project Name:1Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan - Final Final — Non - residential — Commission
Date Completed: 06/24/2009
Reviewer: Andrew Slack E911
Review Status: Approved
Reviews Comments:
APPROVED.
Date Completed:
Reviewer: Gary Whelan ACSA
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments:
RWSA approval also required
Date Completed: 06/2912009
Reviewer: James Barber Fire Rescue
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is.subject to field inspection
and verification.
Date Completed: 06/24/2009
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status: No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Tax Map 61 Parcel 184 does not fall within an Entrance Corridor.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, June 29, 2009