HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300067 Approval - County 2013-12-19 •
old
WQ
;t .71, ,:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,North Wing
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
December 19,2013
Scott Collins,PE
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: SDP-2013-55 Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan-Initial
Mr.Collins:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced site
plan.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five(5)years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one(1)year after the date of this
letter as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle,and thereafter
diligently pursues approval of the final site plan.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit may be issued after the following are received:
1. Approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the
Code.
3. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. Stormwater Management,Erosion and Sediment Control,and Mitigation Plan bonds to be posted.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A fmal site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of$1,500.
3. Submittal of plans directly to each of the agencies/departments listed below necessary to satisfy
the conditions of approval.
The final site plan will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature
until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
Planning Division Approval of:(2 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
1
*S1110° *elle
.
•
Cj` 2. A landscape plan meeting the requirements of section 32.7.9 of Chapter 18 of the Code,including
a tree conservation checklist. j
3. [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
cvO 1 1 i the r quirements of Section 32.7.9.7.
5'n -
ct 1'—c 5 e proposed landscaping depicted on Rio Road East and Penfield Lane appears to meet the
yk � 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
Li 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).
r�4. [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
d
which appears to meet the street tree requirements of the ordinance along Rio Road East and
Q.// / 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
`ln IL lots. Once the townhomes' landscaping plan on the site plan has been revised and approved, the
47.0 t, i r road plan's landscaping sheet for the townhome section should be amended to match the site plan
-' prior to final subdivision plat approval for the townhomes.Revise.
0. �'''S. [32.5.2(p Condition of Approval,32.7.9.5(e)31 Landscaping along streets. The required
ie) park' spaces from the townhome lots 35-41 are adjacent to Lot 34.When cars park in these
\ 'v-‘.) J sp es at night their headlights will shine directly onto Lot 34 and potentially other lots in the
' velopment.Staff understands that street landscaping was not depicted nor required in this area
,- 1\ . 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.On the landscape plan for the townhomes please depict these plantings.Revise.
6. [32.5.2(a)] It appears the setback lines for Block A and Block B are incorrectly labeled on the
plan and show evised prior to final site plan approval.Notably these two blocks should each
have nts and one side.Each have a front on Rio Road East which must depict a 25' setback,
ch have a front on Penfield Lane which must depict a 25' setback, Block A has a front on
Treesdale Way and Block B has a front on Stonehenge Way, of which each must depict a 25'
setback.Revise.
7. [32.5.2(a)] It appears that the General Notes on sheet 1 need to be updated. Specifically the
adjacent property information(note#10)seems out of date,as staff was unable to locate TMP
06100-00-0048300 which is listed on the site plan as being owned by AHIP. Staff believes this
prope is now TMP 06100-00-00-18200 owned by Treesdale.Revise appropriately.Also
ent property owner information for Blocks A and B as listed on the site plan(note#1)do not
match that in County Tax Records.The DB page references numbers provided in general note#4
does not reflect Rio Rd Holding,LLC as the owner.County Tax Records indicate that the owner
of Block A(TMP 061A1-01-0A-00100)as Marvin and Carolyn Spencer and the owner of Block
B(TMP 061A1-01-0B-00100)as Albert and Lisa Spaaar.Revise appropriately and clarify the
ownership information.
8. [32.5.2(n),32.7.2.3(a), 14-422] Sidewalks and landscaping strips. On the plan please dimension
,_-label all existing and proposed sidewalks and planting strips.Additionally, clarify the lack of
✓ sidewalk and planting strip connections fronting the townhouse lots 35-47 onto Stonehenge Way
and Treesdale Way.These sidewalks and landscape strips are required and appropriately depicted
2
n
Noe "woo,
— on t - a• 'roved road 'Ian;however,they are not depicted on the initial site plan currently under
t,, revie in this office. Rather this proposal includes concrete driveway entrances and driveways
,V�� acces g Lots 35—47 in place of the previously approved sidewalks and planting strips.Revise.
)
(7"
- road plans and the site plan should match. Be aware that if changes to this site plan cause it
\` _ to not match the road plans, the road plans must be amended before final subdivision plat
approval can be granted for the townhomes.Revise to provide sidewalks and landscaping strip.
9. [C ition of Approval, 32.5.6.i, 32.7.2.3(a)(c)] Sidewalks along streets. Please extend the
' ewalks fronting Block A and B which front Treesdale Way and Stonehenge way to the
,/ , property lines shared with Stonehenge and Treesdale. Also, these sidewalks should not abruptly
end rather they should have CG-12/ADA accessible ramps to the street for persons with mobility
impairment.Revise.
v/10. [32.5.2(n)] It appears there is a median between each driveway/ for lots 35-47. Will this be
concrete or grass?On the plans please clarify. r`,r,�\--e*c(
' 11' [32.5.2(n)] On the plan dimension the four (4) required guest spaces along Treesdale Way and
Stonehenge Way. If the applicant chooses for these spaces to be intermitted rather than paint
���jj L; 1 stripped then parking signage shall be depicted on the plan. Regardless of the chosen method to
iU l� designate/delineate parking on the plan,assure the dimensions of the spaces are shown on the site
plan.Revise.
12. .5.2 (n)] Sheet 2 depicts project limits; however, it appears that modification will actually go
beyond these limits, specifically within the private right-of-way easements of Stonehen a Way /
and Treesdale Way for driveway connections.Revise the project limits appropriately. ,r -,v^-'4c-•f
.32.5.2(p),32.7.9.4(b)2] Staff questions how the existing tree adjacent to Lot 47 is to remain
v based on it's proximity to the proposed structure.It appears this is the only tree to remain.
Regardless,if trees are to remain,a signed tree conservation plan shall be provided. /' $`'' ''
14. [32. n),4.12.15(h)]Separation of parking area from public street or private road. Where off-
eet parking is provided,parking areas shall be established sufficiently inside the site so as to
0 prevent queuing onto a public street or private road. The minimum required separation shall be
, determined by the county engineer and will be based on the intensity of traffic on the site. In any
5 \ v� case, the minimum separation should not be less than one(1)car length for the most minimal use.
V' \��S Assure that the parking spaces for Lot 41 and Lot 42 have sufficient separation distance from
/V vehicles turning into Treesdale Way or Stonehenge Way from Penfield Lane.
5. [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?
j
j 16,E[Comment] Also, there is a portion of the Greenway Access and Stormwater Management
k—/�`Maintenance Easement located on Stonewater's property which was not built/paved, specifically
r"r-\L. J/ the 12' portion of the easement which connects to Treesdale (DB3932PG498). This segment
j needs to be paved to provide Treesdale residents access to the greenway. When is this to be
paved?
17. mment] Per discussions with the applicant, Scott Collins, the number of townhouse lots
requested on the initial site plan was truly 14;however it didn't show up on the plans.Revise foal
site plan to show 14 lots can fit on the site. The appropriateness of 14 townhouse lots will be
determined/reviewed at the final site plan stage.
3
•
Engineering Division Approval of:(3 conies are required to be submitted for review)
1) Verify with VDOT if warrants are met to design and install the signal at Rio Rd and Penn Park
Lane to satisfy Treesdale Park proffer.
2) The sidewalk to the townhomes along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way is not uniform
throughout the entire length.It jogs out,then crosses over medians between each lot. Show
sidewalk to tie into sidewalk from Penfield Lane.
3) Clarify what will be in the median between each lot.
4) Please note that a subdivision plat is required to subdivide the lots as shown on plan. The
approved plat from SUB2007-77 shows this area as Block A and Block B only.
5) There is an existing overhead electric line running through the proposed development.Clarify
the new location of electric line since it will be an obstruction when townhomes are built.
6) Show CG-12 near lots 41 an 42 from Penfield Lane.
7) Some existing items need to be shown or removed.Address the following:
a) Show existing sidewalk along Treesdale Way and Stonehenge Way,just across
proposed townhomes.
b) A portion of fence across Stonehenge Way near lot 47 has been removed.Please
remove on plans.
c) There is a retaining wall south of building in the Treesdale development. Show wall
and include existing grading between Treesdale and this development. See WPO2011-
88 since the proposed contours now appear to be existing.The proposed swale for
townhomes at this area will change slightly to tie to existing contours.
8) A WPO application shall be submitted for the proposed townhomes.The county records show
that the most current approved WPO application is WPO2012-73 (Stonewater Subdivision),
but E&S measures for the proposed townhomes are not included since it was considered future
development.Also,it appears from WPO2010-11(Treesdale Park),a portion of the
townhomes development is not draining to the enhanced extended detention pond.Please
clarify in WPO application.
9) If applicable,revised Road plan.
Albemarle County Service Authority Approval.(3 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1) Submit 3 sets of construction drawings to the ACSA for review and approval(for sewer and
water meter location verification).
2) Dedication of Stonewater infrastructure(less the section of sewer installed across Penfield
Lane)before the ACSA will grant construction approval.
Virginia Department of Transportation Approval.(1 Cony is required to be submitted for review)
1) See attached VDOT comment letter dated November 21,2013.Please address all their
comments with the final site plan submittal.
Albemarle County Fire&Rescue Approval.(1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
Please provide one copy of the final site plan for Fire and Rescue to review.
Building Inspection Approval(1 Copy Is required to be submitted for review)
Please provide one copy of the fmal site plan for Building Inspections to review.
4 •
e. • Nor-
E911 Aonroval(1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
Please provide one copy of the final site plan for E911 review.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact
me at Extension 3443,cperez(a3albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
Christopher P.Perez
Senior Planner
•
5
• `.w wr
COMMONWEALTH of'VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1801 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701-3819
Gregory A.Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
November 21,2013
Mr.Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: SDP-2013-00055 Stonewater Townhomes—Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr.Perez:
We have reviewed the initial site plan for the Stonewater Townhomes dated 10/7/13 as submitted
by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. The available sight distance at the intersection of Rio Road and Penfield lane needs to be
verified to ensure adequate sight distance. Additional grading on the townhome lots may
be necessary to ensure that there is adequate sight distance.
2. The landscape plan as well as any proposed fencing for the townhomes must be located
such that the sight distance at the Rio Road and Penfield Lane intersection is not
adversely impacted.
3. A signal warrant should be provided to determine the threshold for a new traffic signal at
the intersection of Rio Road and Penfield Lane.
If you need additional information concerning this project,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
fit
Troy Austin,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING