The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP200900048 Review Comments 2009-06-04LE CrN qa k"ej 1) t\1 211C/C1 Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District June 4, 2009 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975-0224 TO:Elizabeth Marotta Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: Stonewater Townhomes JN t " 7til J n E 0 40010 d '.I 9a 't o i K , 4 0ti 7. ,_. 1 Y n r d N'1 1, 11111111144 k : •;.....;P.:, . ., , 1 - 44"4 .....;;:' , : 7: 7-"N 41,,,,,siot." _ ' 111yo,b„,,, , 4 r 0, n ':4, 7-' 441 tv*,., 44,4 gy t\f\ \1:f 3 r y II fir . N Y 4w e 44 I cn 8. A. , \ ewi , .,....„, , , , , t a' 1 / N mJ N Ysq 7...,i,4-!,,ter m 41 11—Si a\P°1 t-i_ :_, i c_)0,„ 1... fic of 4 A3. •41' 4 s I at84itor sj a" may. ,:a"c NJ. ' L w s s "t g w 44.4.' .s a *4. or" aa 40 sf .fatu+, , "'rw k rib i v Q0.} N t.: row, ._,..., nor N y ' a 4 4`i 'ill l }' fir w z +" r, i4• v +«t 'rFt. ,tp I Ly "°"'[ 9 ' 3 • `q-.a +s°' " Lr v' y ' - 'Y l',, 0* t't Y Y '4•. .14 4 ' `ma yytr ''+s k" qi fi 1r. k. " f >-i- oho s r a a T T ti ,.. 4 c 4 w NA 4t fit a •I{S. `-" ... a i USDA United States Natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434- 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Stonewater Townhomes Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 2C Albemarle fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 16 Chewacla silt loam Description Category: Virginia FOTG Chewacla is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 12 inches. The land capability classification is 3w. The Virginia soil management group is I. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Culpeper is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a low available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 8/5/09 Map Unit: 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability ismoderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a moderately steep to steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capabilityclassificationis7e. The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 47E Louisburg sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid.It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e. The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 48E Louisburg very stony sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Louisburg is a steep, deep or very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid.It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7s.The Virginia soil management group is FF. This soil is not hydric. Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Somewhat limited loam, 7 to 15 percent Thomas Jefferson SWCD 2 8/5/09 slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam Very limited 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Somewhat limited 2 to 7 percent slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes 47E Louisburg sandy loam, 25 Very limited to 45 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Very limited sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam 1.5 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, 1.5 2 to 7 percent slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes 47E Louisburg sandy loam, 25 1.5 to 45 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony 1.5 sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Thomas Jefferson SWCD 3 8/5/09 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam Moderate 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Moderate to 25 percent slopes 47E Louisburg sandy loam, 25 Moderate to 45 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Moderate sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 16 Chewacla silt loam High 21B Culpeper fine sandy loam, Moderate 2 to 7 percent slopes 27D Elioak loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 39C Hazel loam, 7 to 15 Low percent slopes 47D Louisburg sandy loam, 15 Low Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 8/5/09 to 25 percent slopes 47E Louisburg sandy loam, 25 Low to 45 percent slopes 48E Louisburg very stony Low sandy loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 5 8/5/09 OV AI-134, o 1111_.,a,e ;..- 4 t:! -1J: /( f'' y IRGI v COUNTY OF 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 OF AL U ® i[J N ..RGI 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 Community Development 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 final 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 final to 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.a][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.a] Setbacks listed on cover sheet do not match setbacks shown on the plan (S -1). Please revise to be consistent. If you are providing a 25' setback along Waterstone Lane, then please revise to read "front" setback. 4. 32.5.6.a] 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 Waterstone 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 fmal 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 full- 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.o] 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.o] Trail easement has been approved (although not signed or recorded), therefore please provide limits 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 final 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 -5832 ext. 3276. 31. Please note that Engineering has received the site plan and their review is underway. 32. E911 approval to include: Review and approval of street names and other applicable items. Please contact Andy Slack at 296 -5832. 33. Zoning & Current Development Engineering approval to include: 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 project. 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 111 v J ^ \ 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 lft 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. COM \ I ONWEALTH of VIRQJ IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 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 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments July 2 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the July 2 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 TIE 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 TRU id! .4M11 Service Authority 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.serviceauthoriy.org Ilk - 17 Service Auth/rrity easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org Application #:SDP20090004&- iShort Review Comrvrents Project Name: Stonewater Townhomes Site Plan - Final Final — Non - residential — Commission li Date Completed:06/24/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:Approved Reviews Comments: APPROVED. I Date Completed: Reviewer:Gary Whelan ACSA Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: RWSA approval also required Date Completed:06/29/2009 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 b n Jade Coady Service Authrity June 28, 2010 Serving Conserving Collins Engineering Attn: Scott Collins, P.E. 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Stonewater Subdivision Dear Mr. Collins: The resubmitted plan, entitled "Stonewater Subdivision" dated March 8, 2010, last revised May 17, 2010, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and specifications. The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction plan showing as -built information and provide this data to your client at the completion of utility installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy and one mylar copy. A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting. This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void. The pressure for water may exceed 80 psi at some meter locations. If you have any questions, or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at (434) 977 -4511. Sincerely, G"-- Thomas A. Garrison, P.E. TAG:dmg Senior Civil Engineer cc: Hunter Craig State Health Department Current Development, Bill Fritz Bldg Codes & Zoning Services Soil Erosion Inspector 050601 Collins062910 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 Tel (434) 977-4511 Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org APPLICATION INFORMATION Application #SDP200900048 All Applications: ARB200900045 Project Name StonewaterTownhomes Site Plan - Final OTH200800419 Application Type Site Development Plans OTH200900059 Tax Map Parcel 06100 -00 -00 -18400 SDP200800129 Request for final site plan approval of 14 townhouse units on 0.80 acres SDP200900048 Project Description zoned R4 Residential on Tax Map 61 Parcel 184. The subject property is SDP201000023 located in the Rio Magisterial District on the western side of Rio Road East SUB200500241StateRoute #631], just north of the Stonehenge development and would take access from a new street that aligns with the intersection of Rio Road SUB200600316 and Penn Park Lane [State Route #1481]. The Comprehensive Plan SUB200700077designatesthispropertyasUrbanDensityinUrbanArea2, with a secondary landuse of Parks and Greenways. TMP Proffer Status REVIEWS Add Planning Review » Review Coordinator Site Inspector Date Assigned Entered By: Elizabeth Marotta on 09/01/2009 Elizabeth Marotta Lisa Green 06/10/2009 Reviewer ID Submittal Type Group or Agency Status Received Due Completed Philip Custer Final Site Plan and Comps. Engineer Z &CD Requested Changes 03/08/2010 05/06/2010 04/30/2010 Andrew Slack Final Site Plan and Co E911 Approved '04/26/2010 05/12/2010 04/27/2010 Elizabeth. Marotta Final Site'Plan' and Co CommDev- Current No Objection 04/21/2010 05/12/2010 04/26/2010 Philip Custer Final Site Plan and Co Engineer Z &CD Requested Changes 03/08/2010 05/06/2010 04/30/2010 Elizabeth Marotta Final Site Plan and Co CommDev - Current Requested Changes 03/08/2010 04/19/2010 04/19/2010 Elizabeth Marotta Final Site Plan and Co CommDev - Current Requested Changes 07/13/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009 lames..Barber Waiver, variation ors Fire Rescue Administrative Appwo 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 Elizabeth Marotta Final Site Plan and Co CommDev- Current Requested Changes 07/13/2009 08/21/2009 08/21/2009 Philip Custer Final Site Plan and Co Engineer Z &CD Requested Changes 07/17/2009 08/06/2009 08/26/2009 James Barber Final Site Plan and Co Fire Rescue Requested Changes 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 Elizabeth Marotta Final Site Plan and Co CommDev - Current Requested Changes 06/09/2009 07/07/2009 07/07/2009 Elizabeth Marotta Final Site Plan and Co CommDev- Current Requested Changes 06/09/2009 07/02/2009 07/02/2009 James Barber Final Site Plan and Co Fire Rescue No Objection 06/17/2009 06/29/2009 06/29/2009 Elaine'Echois Final Site Plan and Co Planning No Objection 06/18/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009 Elizabeth Marotta Final Site Plan and Co CommDev - Current Requested Changes 06/09/2009 06/29/2009 06/29/2009 Philip Custer Final Site Plan and Co Engineer Z &CD Requested Changes 06/09/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009 Joel DeNunzio No.Submittal Type Se VDOT No.Objectiop 06/12/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009 Andrew Slack Final Site Plan and Co E911 Approved 06/12/2009 06/29/2009 06/24/2009 James Barber Final Site Plan and Co Fire Rescue No Objection 06/17/2009 06/29/2009 06/29/2009 Margaret Maliszewski .No Submittal Type Se AR13 No Objection 06/12/2009 06/29/2009 06/24/2009 Gary Whelan No Submittal Type Se ACSA Requested Changes 06/12/2009 06/29/2009 06/29/2009 Jay•Schlothauer Final Site Plan and Co Inspections No Objection 06/12/2009 06/29/2009 07/01/2009 Gary Whelan Final Site Plan and Co ACSA Pending 04/15/2010 Document Review Title Review Documents will also show on the Web) Existing Review Docs Comments: The box below is meant for short comments. Date Sent AJ. 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 lft 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 fmal 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. tom. ((i‘Nit ipd.‹.4 = r (1 Hi 8 C:211 rt RGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 2, 2009 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: AMENDED Comment #25, for SDP - 2009 -48 Stonewater Townhomes- Final Dear Sir: Department of Community Development 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 fmal prior to a preliminary. The ordinance contemplates the approval of a preliminary site plan prior to the submittal of a final site plan. However, by interpretation the ordinance does allow the submittal of a fmal prior to approval of a preliminary. No mechanism exists in the ordinance for the County to approve with conditions a fmal 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 final to 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.a][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'. ,i0, 1 ; [ t .a L t', C f J n. 3. 32.5.6.a] Setbacks listed on cover sheet do not match setbacks shown on the plan (S -1). Please revise to 0 . 1 4 = , ft . v be consistent. If you are providing a 25' setback along Waterstone Lane, then please revise to read "front" V ,, ; y, setback. 4. 32.5.6.a] Provide sheet number and total number of sheets. (For example, "Sheet 1 of 15 ") - 76 t 4 Ut " - - 5. 32.5.6.a] Revise revision block to EITHER: add this submittal as a revision to the original submittal, OR,t 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 fmal site plan approval. 12. [32.5.6.i] Clearly delineate where Waterstone 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 fmal 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 full- 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.o] 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.o] Trail easement has been approved (although not signed or recorded); therefore please provide limits of approved trail easement on the plan. PLEASE NOTE that in order to satisfy the Treesdale proffer related to providing the trail /easement through the property, the easement must be recorded either prior to fmal subdivision plat approval (for the single family portion of this development) or prior to approval of the Treesdale fmal site 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. u'1 L, 1 6'1.01... %, ,Atkv14ti t, plt,L IA' r'trkU r " uthal elI)( t( e i .iJ t: 2iAvt. *y ihii.'i - The final site plan is subject to all final 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 -5832 ext. 3276. 31. Please note that Engineering has received the site plan and their review is underway. 32. E911 approval to include: Review and approval of street names and other applicable items. Please contact Andy Slack at 296 -5832. 33. Zoning & Current Development Engineering approval to include: 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 fmal 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 project. Please contact Joel DeNunzio at 293 -0011 Ext. 120. Sincerely, Vll-njrt 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 g it 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 2, 2009 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: AMENDED Comment #25, for SDP - 2009 -48 Stonewater Townhomes- Final Dear Sir: Department of Community Development 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: This proposal has been submitted as a fmal prior to a preliminary. The ordinance contemplates the tJ approval of a preliminary site plan prior to the submittal of a final site plan. However, by interpretation the i - , c ordinance does allow the submittal of a final prior to approval of a preliminary. No mechanism exists in he ordinance for the County to approve with conditions a final site plan. Therefore, if the site plan does v 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 fmal to a preliminary site plan which V "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. f l 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'. 02 2 41 d,,r' yt-/)1 2.k Y:tAcLe" ' . °l 4 .cA..T Vk1Cti tie rl'fx t =t 6,- i5 • .. i (i - 3.' [32.5.6.a] Setbacks listed on r over sheet do not match setbacks shown o the plan (S -1). Please revise to be consistent. If you are providing a 25' setback along Waterstone Lane, then please revise to read "front" setback. T i. o '-(vvvt., T t" ' 4-e'' . f t cep 9A. i, z 4, t Wevt ‹; 7 4. 32.5.6.a] Provide sheet number and total number of sheets. (For example, "Sheet 1 of 15 ") t-'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. C': [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. 1 ).7' [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. 32.5.6b] Provide the maximum acreage of the proposed use r (d(r r e i 1 ' Provide square footage of recreation area (trail area included in this site plan) ` VI;i tti i4L Provide acreage and % of open space provided IjL ,e ' ,e7 s Provide amount of paved parking and circulation area 1,1M' [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. L.1' 32.5.6.i] Street names must be approved by E911 prior to final site plan approval. 32.5.6.i] Clearly delineate where Waterstone 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 an approved prior to final site plan approval. KiciC- -ice le t a & f )t,v t ti t) jri, 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. N1\f, 1k'5 (t 32.5.6.i] Please clarify why street is no xtending to the property line shared with Treesdale. C kJ t. 4E. 66, IA [32.5.6.n] Proposed sidewalks along Rio Road, and apparently along Waterstone Lane, fall inside of proposed private lots. Please provide ease ents and maintenance agreement information for these sidewalks. 0 Z Z,, 17. [32.5.6. n] Driveways appear to be varying dimensions. Provide all dimensions, include radii. 4 1 Cs;; lr' ' -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. J,9( Provide legend to paving materials on sheet S -1 and appropriate references to accurate details. 32.5.6.b] Provide appropriate curb ramp sidewalk details at intersections and where trail intersects with Waterside Lane. oil (' l.tt 00415 47 [32.5.6.n][32.6.6.j] Note #14 states that no outdoor lighting will emit more than 3000 lumens (andthereforealightingplanisnotprovided). 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 full- cutoff luminaire. The spillover from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one -half footcandle." 32.5.6.1] Please label landscape easement along western property line and provide instrument /reference. 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. tvle , vt.+1 6vi C eth tt ilfattif tom' GSA w ED) i 25. [32.5.6.o] Trail easement has been approved (although not signed or recorded); therefore please provide limits of approved trail easement on the plan. PLEASE NOTE that in order to satisfy the Treesdale proffer related to providing the trail /easement through the property, the easement must be recorded either prior to final subdivision plat approval (for the single family portion of this development) or prior to lt , approval of the Treesdale fmal site plan. r i' 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. q. r Ye ca 900n41-1 27. [32.5.6.p] Remove shrubs from across the proposed trail and update callouts and landscape schedule. 32.5.6.p] Provide instrument /reference for Landscape easement shown on sheet E -1. L 4.16] Please describe, provide details how you are providing /meeting the recreation area requirement. The final site plan is subject to all final 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: 1,43A- [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 -5832 ext. 3276. 1,,, L+1.; ';16/3 `4xc. , 44 ..) in is A421:5 . l il.;v15c c`'1C . Please note that Engineering has rd'deived the site plan and their review is underway. 1E911 approval to include: Review and approval of street names and other applicable items. Please contact Andy Slack at 296 -5832. 33. Zoning & Current Development Engineering approval to include: 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 fmal 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. 3 . Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval to include: V 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 project. 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 Page l of l F t t. c.oF Elizabeth Marotta upl,oa b CV From: James Barber 7( 2210 Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:05 PM To:Elizabeth Marotta Subject: RE: Stonewater side setback reductions Liz, My notes from the meeting indicate I did say the side yard set back reduction from 15' to 10' was acceptable, contingent upon verification of adequate fire flow availability. The ACSA can provide the current fire flow for the area and the developer can provide fire flow calculations for proposed new hydrants. As always, the approval is subject to field inspection and verification. James F. Barber Assistant Chief, Prevention County of Albemarle Department of Fire /Rescue 460 Stagecoach Road, Suite F Charlottesville, VA 22902 -6489 Ph: (434) 296 -5833 Fax: (434) 972 -4123 E -mail: JBarber @Albemarle.org Web: www.ACFireRescue.org From: Elizabeth Marotta Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:27 PM To: James Barber Subject: Stonewater side setback reductions James, I believe in the SRC meeting for Stonewater (SDP 09 -48) you verbally agreed that the reduction in side yard setbacks from 15' to 10' was acceptable to you and that you would be providing me something in writing. I am working on wrapping up my review, and it would be helpful if I had that from you. (It is quite possible you did email that to me and I just cannot find it, so I apologize if you did.) Thank you! Elizabeth M. Marotta Senior Planner County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3432 7/22/2009 A I..y Magraldi County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:26 August 2009 Subject: Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00048) The first revision to the fmal 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) Rev. 1) The site plan must match the approved road plan with regard to sidewalks and planting strips. 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. Rev. 1) Offsite plats have been recorded as required. The 2006 agreement between Stonewater and Stonehenge was reviewed and meets the minimum county requirements for consent to allow offsite construction. The connector road as shown on the plats may remain. 3. The public Right -of -Way lines should match the recently submitted fmal plat and road plans. The sidewalk along Rio Road should be lft within the public ROW. Rev. 1) Property lines as shown are now acceptable, though the note regarding a sidewalk easement on the front of lot 43 should be removed to avoid any confusion. Please also make sure when copies of the road plans are submitted for inspection and any final plat is submitted that the property lines and easements match. 4. The sidewalk behind the townhomes should be within an easement allowing for access to and from the Stonehenge and Treesdale properties. Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. This easement will need to be shown on the first subdivision plat with the connecting private roads. 5. Any modification to access easements, lot lines, and drainage easements should be reflected in the fmal plat and road plans. Rev. 1) The applicant has been made aware of this comment. The drainage easement on lot 35 is shown differently than on the latest subdivision plat. This easement does not need to be centered over the pipe and may be located in the setback line on the townhome lot 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. Rev. 1) A 6ft planting strip and 5ft sidewalk must be provided on this private road unless a waiver is obtained from the Planning Commission. [14 -410H, 14 -4221 Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 7 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:26 August 2009 Subject: Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00048) The first revision to 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) Rev. 1) The site plan must match the approved road plan with regard to sidewalks and planting strips. 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. Rev. 1) Offsite plats have been recorded as required. The 2006 agreement between Stonewater and Stonehenge was reviewed and meets the minimum county requirements for consent to allow offsite construction. The connector road as shown on the plans may remain. 3. The public Right -of -Way lines should match the recently submitted final plat and road plans. The sidewalk along Rio Road should be lft within the public ROW. Rev. 1) Property lines as shown are now acceptable, though the note regarding a sidewalk easement on the front of lot 43 should be removed to avoid any confusion. Please also make sure when copies of the road plans are submitted for inspection and any final plat is submitted that the property lines and easements match. 4. The sidewalk behind the townhomes should be within an easement allowing for access to and from the Stonehenge and Treesdale properties. Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. This easement will need to be shown on the first subdivision plat with the connecting private roads. 5. Any modification to access easements, lot lines, and drainage easements should be reflected in the final plat -nd road plans. Rev. 1) The applicant h`as been made aware of this comment. The drainage easement on lot 35 is shown differently than on the latest subdivision plat: This easement does not need to be centered over the pipe and may be located in the setback line on the townhome lot. 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. Rev. 1) A 6ft planting strip and 5ft sidewalk must be provided on this private road unless a waiver is obtained from the Planning Commission. [14 -410H, 14 -422] Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 J V 1 \/ N County of Albemarle U2'DepartmentDepartment of Community Develop ent v Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:26 August 2009 Subject: Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00048) The first revision to 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 -o\ .as\t p _2007 - 00077) Rev. 1) The site plan must match the approved road plan with regard to sidewalks and planting strips. 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. Rev. 1) Offsite plats have been recorded as required. The 2006 agreement between Stonewater and Stonehenge was reviewed and meets the minimum county requirements for consent to allow offsite construction. The connector road as shown on the plans may remain. 3.` The public Right -of -Way lines should match the recently submitted final plat and road plans. The sidewalk along Rio Road should be lft within the public ROW. Rev. 1) Property lines as shown are now acceptable, though the note regarding a sidewalk easement on the front of lot 43 should be removed to avoid any confusion. Please also make sure when copies of the road plans are submitted for inspection and any final plat is submitted that the property lines.and_ensements match, 4. The sidewalk behind the townhomes should be within an easement allowing for access to and from the Stonehenge and Treesdale properties. Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. This easement will need to be shown on the first subdivision plat with the connecting private roads. 5. Any modification to access easements, lot lines, and drainage easements should be reflected in the final plat and road plans. c• Rev. 1) The applicant has been made aware of this comment. The drainage easement on lot 35 is shown differently than on the latest subdivision plat. This easement does N( not need to be centered over the pipe and may be located in the setback line on the townhome lot. C 1` 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. QV" CJ' t)Y Rev. 1) A 6ft planting strip and 5ft sidewalk must be provided on this private road Junless .a waiver is obtained from the Planning Commission. 41 r,9 01/1\\i„‘ ece, o AL IRGINI COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 September 8, 2009 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2009 - 48 Stonewater Townhomes Final (July 13, 2009 revisions) Dear Sir: Department of Community Development Zoning and Current Development has reviewed the site plan (as revised 7/13/09) against applicable codes and ordinances. Zoning and Current Development comments are as follows: 1. 32.5.6.b] Provide the maximum acreage of the proposed use and amount of paved parking and circulation area. Your response to comments indicated this information was provided on T -1 under "comment" 23, however I do not see the information on the cover sheet or a note #23. 2. 32.5.6.p] Conservation checklist must be completed and signed. 3. Landscape Comments: Please revise sheet LL -1 and the landscape schedule so they correspond. Are 7 UA included in this site plan? They are currently outside the limits. Also, a callout on the plan provides for 8QP" but only 7 are shown within the project limits and they are not provided in the schedule. 4. Landscaping must be within the project limits, please move AS to within the project limits. 5. Provide driveway pavement sections. 6. Remove trail section detail from S -2 as the trail is not part of this site plan. Also, please remove trail note /callout on S -1 since the trail is not part of this SDP. 7. Are sanitary /storm notes on sheet S -1 for this project ( "Shift location of approved san /storm.... ")? Please make it clearer to the reader if they are or are not. Also, please refer to SUB# in the callout that begins MH -12 approved...." 8. 184.12] Driveway parking spaces must each be a minimum of 9' x 18' to qualify to count towards the required parking. Additionally, please refer to Engineering comment #6 (dated 8/26/09): a 6' planting strip and 5' sidewalk must be provided. I 1,4 L..1 t ; ; ; 9. Limits of the site plan (Sidewalk, right -of -way, easements, etc...) must match those on the approved road plans and subdivision. Be aware that if changes to this site plan cause it to not match the road plans, the road plans must be amended before final site plan approval can be granted. 10. The sidewalk easement for the sidewalk behind the townhouses (along Waterstone Lane) must be extended to the property line shared with Treesdale (even if sidewalk improvements are not included in this site plan). The second amendment to the Treesdale agreement provides that Treesdale will make the sidewalk connection and construct on Stonewater' s property. However, the maintenance agreement for Stonewater will include the area of the sidewalk inside easement, and this future section of the sidewalk must be covered by the maintenance agreement. The final site plan is subject to all final 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: 11. Zoning & Current Development Engineering approval to include: All applicable items as specified in the Design Standards Manual, Section 902B 12. Albemarle County Fire Rescue approval to include: Review and approval of fire flow and fire hydrant locations. Please contact Fire Rescue directly to coordinate their review of your project. Please contact James Barber at 296 -5833. 13. Albemarle County Service Authority (ASCA) approval to include: Review of all final water and sewer plans. RWSA approval also required 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. Sincerely, r 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 vibRON\‘ CoN' A AL e'/1 v EL v- eviyi 6) Loch 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMAR E A c4 1 ` h oL ' a _ Department of Community Dev ' opment a 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 1'u I Charlottesville, Virginia 2290 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 September 8, 2009 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2009 - 48 Stonewater Townhomes Final (July 13, 2009 revisions) Dear Sir: Department of Community Development Zoning and Current Development has reviewed the site plan (as revised 7/13/09) against applicable codes and ordinances. Zoning and Current Development comments are as follows: j [32.5.6.b] Provide the maximum acreage of the proposed use and amount of paved parking and circulation area. Your response to comments indicated this information was provided on T -1 under "comment" 23, however I do not see the information on the cover sheet or a note #23. 32.5.6.p] Conservation checklist must be completed and signed. jLandscape Comments: Please revise sheet LL -1 and the landscape schedule so they correspond. Are 7 UA included in this site plan? They are currently outside the limits. Also, a callout on the plan provides for 8QP" but only 7 are shown within the project limits and they are not provided in the schedule. 4 Landscaping must be within the project limits, please move AS to within the project limits. Cp , Provide driveway pavement sections.Q l 64 Remove trail section detail from S -2 as the trail is not part of this site plan. Also, please remove trail d7 note /callout on S -1 since the trail is not part of this SDP.I A re sanitary /storm notes on sheet S -1 for this project ( "Shift location of approved san /storm.... ")? Please Q make it clearer to the reader if they are or are not. Also, please refer to SUB# in the callout that begs s MH -12 approved.... " .-- 0 / 4 ; c 1'l6, , ,, l,Cr (y1 otiqUitai WO-1 n',, 18 -4.12] Driveway parking spaces must each be a minimum of 9' x 18' to qualify to count towards the Qrequired parking. Additionally, please refer to En ineering comme I ated 8/26/09): a 6' planting strip , C 1 and 5' sidewalk must be provided.5 i sr "X 2C% C I. 12 fit,430 tj t (3? r .V Limits of the site plan (Sidewalk, right -of -wa easements, etc. >) mus atch th rD t! e approved road j it plans and subdivision. Be aware that if changes to this site plan cause it to not match the road plans. the goad plans must be amended before final site plan approval can be granted. 1fd. The sidewalk easement for the sidewalk behind the townhouses (along Waterstone Lane) must be extended L/ to the property line shared with Treesdale (even if sidewalk improvements are not included in this site plan). The second amendment to the Treesdale agreement provides that Treesdale will make the sidewalk connection and construct on Stonewater's property. However, the maintenance agreement for Stonewater will include the area of the sidewalk inside easement, and this future section of the sidewalk must be covered by the maintenance agreement.n The final site plan is subject to all final 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: le ' oning & Current Development Engineering approval to include: All applicable items as specified in the Design Standards Manual, Section 902B Albemarle County Fire Rescue approval to include:ct ce-f Review and approval of f ow and fire hydrant locations. Please contact Fire Rescue direc y to coordinate their review of your project. Please bontact James Barber at 296 - 5833. C) 13. Albemarle County Service Authority (ASCA) approval to include: Review of all final water and sewer plans. RWSA approval also required Please note that I have not received comments or approval from this agency. Please contact ACSA directly o coordinate their review of your project. Please contact Gary Whelan at 977 - 4.511. Sincerely,d f a 4 , 4.i N T Elizabeth M. Marotta Zii Senior Planner j' i C((i It Zoning & Current Development Q ry p File: SDP - 2009 -48 0i4 1 7 9 ,2 k o t-1" CJt e.. J Cc. Rio Road Holdings LLC 00 1900 Arlington Boulevard Suite A t r . 14 _1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 f "-7 G 0 (,fir e Application #:SDP201000023 Irv' port Review Comments Project Name: Stonewater Subdivision - Minor Minor Amendment Date Completed:04/19/2010 Reviewer:Elizabeth Marotta CommDev- Current Development Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: This submittal is an amendment to the approved road plans. The amendment to the road plans is necessary in order to be able to approve the site plan for the townhouses, however, this project is just an amendment to an approved plan and does not require a separate project number; since engineering is the lead on road plans, I will leave it to them to handle the return of the excess fee and getting this review under the proper project number. 4/19/10- As proposed, the limits of this road plan coordinate with the site plan for the townhouse units, land thus, Planning has no objection. Page. 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Monday, April 19, 2010 Lc f`/ of a p ", t11 r ' ! s J'' I - III a 4' ry ) 4 Ik.V.fiti A . irt"7 -4, Pik COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 19, 2010 Scott Collins, PE Collins Engineering 800 E. Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP - 2009 -48 Stonewater Townhomes- Final (March 8, 2010 revisions) Dear Sir: Department of Community Development Zoning and Current Development has reviewed the site plan (as revised 3 /8/10) against applicable codes and ordinances. Zoning and Current Development comments are as follows: k: 18 -4.12] Driveway parking spaces must each be a minimum of 9' x 18' to qualify to count towards the required parking. In two places you show a 17'x 20' parking pad for two cars, and in one place you show a 16' x 20' parking pad (driveway). These pads do not meet the minimum requirement to count for 2 parking spaces. They must be a minimum of 18'x wide to count for 2 parking spaces towards your required parking. Remove Note #15 on Sheet T -1 3: Revise Note #17 on Sheet T -1; street names referenced are not longer correct iPlease clarify Note #7 on Sheet T -1; as it reads now it appears you are claiming 0.78 acres are how many TH units are proposed. It would be more appropriate to state "14 TH units on 0.78 acres." The final site plan is subject to all final 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: 5. Current Development Engineering approval to include: All applicable items as specified in the Design Standards Manual, Section 902B Approval of amendment to Road Plans (SDP 10 -23, currently under review) 6. Albemarle County Service Authority (ASCA) approval to include: Review of all final water and sewer plans. RWSA approval also required Please note that I have not received comments or approval from this agency on this, or even your last submittal. Please contact ACSA directly to coordinate their review of your project. Please contact Gary Whelan at 977 -4511. 7. E911 approval to include: Approval of final road names Contact Andy Slack at 296 - 5832 x3384 for any questions. Sincerely, e 1 Elizabeth M. Maro a Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development File: SDP - 2009 -48 Cc. Rio Road Holdings LLC 1900 Arlington Boulevard Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Elizabeth Marotta From:Elizabeth Marotta Sent:Monday, April 26, 2010 12:16 PM To:kirsten @collins - engineering.com Subject:stonewater Kirsten The revisions you submitted on 4/21/10 look good. Please make sure the changes you made to the parking /driveways did not affect any plantings; I will double check the landscaping against the revised site plan when it comes back in, but I will not require you to make another submittal for current planning's review. Please note that I cannot issue tentative approval until all the reviewing agencies and departments have signed off on it, and be aware that any comments they make may cause me to generate new comments. Keep me posted as to your reviews with ACSA, and I will keep you informed about the engineering and E911 reviews. Elizabeth M. Marotta Senior Planner County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434) 296 -5832 Ext. 3432 1 pF ALI 111 109 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner From:Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date:30 April 2010 Subject: Stonewater Townhomes Final Site Plan (SDP- 2009 - 00048) The second revision to 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) Rev. 1) The site plan must match the approved road plan with regard to sidewalks and planting strips. Rev. 2) The ROW and sidewalks currently match the latest revision to the road plans. Please update the site plan with drainage easements when the signature copies are submitted to the Planner. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 Rev. 2) Since the second submittal of this plan, the previously approved WPO plan had expired. The applicant has opted to include the Stonewater ESC plan in the Treesdale application. Please remove all references to WPO- 2007 -00045 from this application. This site plan cannot be approved until the current WPO plan for this area (WPO- 2010- 00011) is approved. 10. (Rev. 2) This plan cannot be approved until the Stonewater Subdivision Construction Plan is approved (SUB - 2007 - 00077) and the offsite public drainage easement on the Treesdale property is recorded.