HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600029 Correspondence 2017-10-12Will Cockrell
From:
Will Cockrell
Sent:
Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:31 PM
To:
Rachel Falkenstein
Subject:
Spring Hill Village
Hey Rachel,
I just wanted to touch base on Spring Hill Village. we have comments trom reviewers. I've looked over the site plan. I
don't REALLY have comments, but I don't know if I have enough knowledge to provide a super great assessment. They
mark the things changed. With the exemption and everything else, what do I need to be doing right now with this?
Thanks,
Will
Will Cockrell, AICP
On -Call County Planner
Albemarle County, Community Development
or 434-296-5832 ext.3088
'1
®r
Will Cockrell
From: alan@alanfranklinpe.com
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 9:36 AM
To: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT); Alan Franklin; Deel, Justin (VDOT); Will Cockrell
Cc: 'Alan Franklin'
Subject: Re: SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan 9-15-17
Thanks Adam,
The drainage area linework didn't print so that is the missing link.
Alan
-----Original Message -----
From: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)[mailto:Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 08:50 AM
To: 'Alan Franklin', 'Deel, Justin (VDOT)', wcockrell@albemarle.org
Cc: "Alan Franklin"
Subject: RE: SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan 9-15-17
Alar,
1?II let Justin respond about completing the drainage review, but if the plans include what we need that is not a
problem.
The hydrologic calculations that are missing are what are tied to the drainage area map. How you get from a drainage
area map to an amount of water going in an inlet are the hydrologic calcs.
Adam J. Moore, P.E. I Assistant Resident Engineer i' Land Use
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 VDDT War I Charlottesville I VA
main 434.422.9782
From: Alan Franklin[mailto:alan@aianfranklinpe.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 4:01 PM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT); wcockrell@albemarle.org
Cc: 'Alan Franklin; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Subject: RE: SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan 9-15-17
Justin,
Made a little progress this time. Thanks.
A couple of quick questions?
If I provided you the drainage area map with the missing area lines shown, would you be able to provide the more
detailed drainage review on the current plans?
Also, what do you mean by hydrologic calculations? HGI-? Or do you mean pavement drainage because I thought that
was included?
Thanks,
Alan
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT)fmaiito:Justin.Deel@vdot.vireinia.gov}
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:44 PM
To: wcockrell@albemarle.org
Cc: Alan Franklin, PE <alan alanfranklin e.com>; Alan Franklin <afranklin waterstreetstudio.net>; Moore, Adam PE
(VDOT) <Adam.Moore@ydot.vireinia.gov>
Subject: SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan 9-15-17
Will,
Attached is our review letter for SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan, which includes the comments below.
Alan, still about the same number of comments but this is largely due to the fact you?ve added the drainage
information to the plan, which we hadn?t reviewed before. Feel free to give us a call if you have any questions.
1. Please include the Access Management Exception approval letter, dated 10 February 2017, on the plans.
2. Include the intersection sight distance profiles on the plans, not as an addendum to the plans.
3. The right sight distance line for Road A/Route 20 is not adequate as it passes through'ground. Additionally, it
appears that the left sight distance line for Road C/Road A will be blocked by the proposed 2? landscape wall
(which does not appear on the profile). Potential visual obstructions such as walls must be included on the sight
distance profiles.
4. Check the left sight distance line for Road D/Road A; it extends to Avon Street Ext. on the plans and passes
through ground on the profile.
5. Check sight distance line labels on the plans, they still state 20 mph design speed.
6. The minimum posted speed limit for this development should be 25 mph. There does not appear to be any
speed limit signs on this plan.
7. The Road D gutter pan should not extend in to the travel lane of Avon Street Ext.
8. The entrance radii for the Gropen (Parham) Facility need to be 42?.
9. There is a gap in the 1?:20? scale view on the Route 20 Improvements Plans (Sheets 7 & 13) that includes the
left and right turn lanes into the site. The largest scale provided for this area is 1?:60?, which does not provide
enough detail for such significant improvements to an arterial road.
10. The Route 20 typical section says that the existing southbound lane is being converted to a southbound left
turn lane; should state that Us being converted to a northbound left turn lane.
11. The Route 20 typical section should be only representative of the road section at the proposed entrance, i.e. no
variable widths.
12. The drainage area boundaries are not visible on the Drainage Area Map (Sheet 18).
13. Provide hydrologic calculations.
14. Where DI -3s are greater than &feet deep, DI-3AA, -31313, or -3CC should be specified as applicable and those
details should be provided.
15. Show HGL?s on profiles and provide HGL calculations.
16. This plan has pipe velocities that are in excess of 20 fps. The Drainage Manual states that pipe velocities in
excess of 10 fps are to be avoided.
17. Please provide further grading information showing that water drains away from the ?dry gutter?.
18. The minimum storage and taper lengths for 55 mph posted speed limit (60 mph design speed) is 200 feet for
each; plans show only 100 feet of storage. Please see Appendix F Figures 3-1 & 3-4.
19. The northern curb return at the Parham entrance should be offset 12 feet from the southbound through lane,
where the 12 foot taper should begin at a rate of 15:1 back to the through lane. Please see Appendix F, Figure
4-9, Page F-124. There should be no curbing along the taper beyond the point where the entrance radius is
tangent to Route 20.
20. Note on plans the required area of mill and overlay in accordance with the WP -2 standard for Route 20 and
Avon Street Ext.
21. Provide documentation that Albemarle County Emergency Services approve of the proposed 35? cul-de-sac.
See Appendix B(1) page B(1)-25.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
Will Cockrell
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 11:22 AM
To: Will Cockrell
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final.
I. Indicate on the plan the color of the retaining walls.
2. Revise the Entrance Corridor trees (M) to 3%" caliper at planting.
3. There appear to be discrepancies between the plant quantities listed in the plant list and the plants drawn
on the plans for the following plants: C, D, F, H, M, P, Q, R, S, V and W. Please correct as necessary.
4. On the landscape plans, some tree symbols have been separated from their labels. Please correct.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number= SDP201600029
Reviewer = Margaret Maliszewski
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = 09/01/2017
This email was sent from County View Production.
Will Cockrell
From: Matthew Wentland
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 9:22 AM
To: Will Cockrell
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = SDP201600029
Reviewer = Matthew Wentland
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date = 08/25/2017
This email was sent from County View Production.
Based on plan dated 8-4-17:
1. An approved WPO submittal will be required before site plan approval.
2. An approved road plan submittal will be required before site plan approval.
3. Provide bumper blocks where parking is adjacent to sidewalks less than 6' wide.
4. It is recommended to obtain temporary easements or agreements for any offsite grading.
5. It appears a permanent offsite easement may be required for the retaining walls next to the property line.
Engineered wall plans may be required to verify that no portion of the wall (such as geogrid) is located offsite.
Also provide typical wall details on the plans.
6. Engineering recommends fencing or railing on retaining walls due to safety issues.
7. Show all drainage easements on the plans. D3-1 to D3, 51-1, and E2 to the UG storage appear to be missing
easements.
8. There appears to be phantom call -outs to Filterra units on the grading sheets.
Will Cockrell
From:
Elise Kiewra
Sent:
Monday, August 21, 2017 9:50 AM
To:
Will Cockrell
Subject:
Planning Application Review for SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = SDP201600029
Reviewer = Elise Kiewra
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date= 08/21/2017
This email was sent from County View Production.
We are switching up duties on a yearly basis and I'm now doing all site plans. I see this is a final plan but they
do not have any road names listed. I uploaded a letter into countyview but let me know if you have any
questions. Thanks.
Elise
Will Cockrell
From:
Robbie Gilmer
Sent:
Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:15 AM
To:
Will Cockrell
Subject:
RE: Spring Hill Village
Mr. Cockrell,
Yes, I will need to see the new plans. We have requirements for turning radii, street widths, street lengths and hydrant
locations.
THANK YOU,
ROBERT GILMER, CFEI
CAPT/ASSIST FIRE MARSHAL
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE
460 STAGECOACH ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902
OFFICE 434-296-5833
CELL 434-531-6606
From: Will Cockrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 20171:02 PM
To: Robbie Gilmer <rgilmer@albemarle.org>
Subject: Spring Hill Village
Mr. Gilmer,
I'm part-time at Community Development, filling in for Rachel while she's out on maternity leave.] received updated
plans from the folks doing Spring Hill Village, where they tweaked the roadway alignment within the site. In the
transition from Rachel to me, I didn't realize that 1 probably should have sent you the updated plans. You didn't have
comments on the last plans, so didn't think about it. I got the new plans on January 4th.
I scanned the old and new layouts, so you can get an idea of what they changed. Page 1 is the old and page 2 is the new.
Did you want to review the new road layout? If so, I can drop off the plans.
Thanks and sorry for missing that,
Will
Will Cockrell, AICP
On -Call County Planner
Albemarle County, Community Development
or 434-296-5832 ext -3088
r.
4,
J.
Will Cockrell
From:
Andrew Slack
Sent:
Thursday, January 26, 2017 4:01 PM
To:
Will Cockrell
Subject:
RE: Spring Hill Village (SDP201600029)
I'm sorry I forgot to ask you if you wanted/needed the plans back. Do you?
Andy Slack
GIS Specialist
Information Services - Department of Community Development
Albemarle County, VA
Phone: (434) 296-5832 ext. 3384
Email: aslack@albemarle.org
www.albemarle.or
From: Will Cockrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 20171:32 PM
To: Andrew Slack <aslack@albemarle.org>
Subject: Spring Hill Village (SDP201600029)
Hey Andy,
I received updated plans from the folks doing Spring Hill Village, where they tweaked the roadway alignment within the
site. In the transition from Rachel to me, I didn't realize that I probably should have sent you the updated plans. You had
comments on the last plans, but didn't think about it. I got the new plans on January 0
I dropped a set of the plans in your office. Could you take a look and let me know if you have any additional comments?
Thanks and sorry for missing that,
Will
Will Cockrell, AICP
On -Call County Planner
Albemarle County, Community Development
or 434-296-5832 exL3088
rttif �!
4r
�� w
Will Cockrell
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:39 PM
To: Will Cockrell
Cc: Alan Franklin; Vito Cetta; 'mkeller@terraconceptspc.com'; Moore, Adam PE (VDOT);
Rachel Falkenstein
Subject: SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan 1-26-16
Attachments: SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan 1-26-16.pdf
Will,
Attached is our review letter for SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan, which includes the following
comments:
1. Previous comments that were not addressed by the new proposed internal road alignment have not been
addressed or acknowledged. Going forward, a comment response letter will be required in order to review the
plans. Additionally, the plans must be signed and sealed.
2. The Access Management exception requests for entrance spacing and corner clearance, currently being
reviewed under separate cover, must be approved prior to site and road plan approval.
3. Show ADT, ROW width, design and posted speeds for all public streets, existing and proposed.
4. The Road A ROW should not extend beyond the Road D ROW at the intersection.
5. Provide intersection sight distance profiles on the plans. This is a requirement, otherwise it is not clear how
much ground clearance is available, particularly where sight lines pass over(?) retaining walls. Please note that
trees within the sight distance easements or right-of-way may have to be removed if not pruned in such a way
as to avoid becoming sight line obstructions. For sight lines that cut through lots, decks and/or fences may not
be able to be built as they may also create sight line obstructions. Sight line easements will be required for all
locations that the sight line is not fully located within proposed right of way.
6. The internal intersection sight distance lines are still being shown at 225 feet (20 mph design speed). Slopes and
K -values do not meet the requirements for a 25 mph design speed. As previous noted, in order to utilize
AASHTO's Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads the ADT must be less than
400. This development will generate in excess of 750 ADT; therefore, these guidelines cannot be used. The
minimum design speed should be 25 mph, maximum slope should be no greater than 11%, sight distance lines
should be 280 feet, minimum K -values should be 12 and 26 for crest and sag, respectively.
7. Please show all traffic signs; none appear on this plan.
8. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
9. Please provide further grading information showing that water drains away from the "dry gutter". In addition,
please provide more proposed contour labels on the grading plans.
10. VDOT does not recommend the restriction of on -street public parking, particularly Road E, where only garage
parking is available.
11. Clarify the typical section detail for parking in front of lots 83-86. This does not appear on the plan; where is
parking available in front of these lots? Are these the only areas where onsite parking will be permitted? Please
clarify.
12. The typical public road section calls for 29 feet curb to curb; the plans show 24 feet.
13. Please correct North Arrows.
14. Please include left- and right -turn lane warrants for both Route 20 and Avon Street Ext. in the planset. Are
improvements not warranted for Avon Street Ext.? Please verify. The required storage length is determined by
the warrants. Regardless, the minimum storage and taper lengths for 55 mph posted speed limit (60 mph design
speed) is 200 feet for each; you are only providing 100' for each.
15. Turn lanes should match the width of the through lane. The gutter pan width should not be included in the
required 12' for the right -turn lane and acceleration lane. Also, travel lanes, including turn lanes, cannot extend
to the edge of pavement as being proposed through the Route 20 improvements. Provide topographic
information showing the required grading to widen Route 20 enough to provide 12' lanes and shoulders in
accordance with page A-12 of Appendix A of the Road Design Manual.
16. The northern curb return at the Parham entrance should be offset 12 feet from the southbound through lane,
where the 12 foot taper should begin at a rate of 15:1 back to the through lane. Please see Appendix F, Figure 4-
9, Page F-124. There should be no curbing along the taper beyond the point where the entrance radius is
tangent to Route 20.
17. Please provide and show appropriate dimensions, per Figure 3-4 of Appendix F, for the shifting tapers, turn lane
tapers, and storage length. Note that the turn lane taper should extend at least 75 feet beyond the center of the
intersection (Road A).
18. Please consider a layout that allows the Route 20 improvements to be viewed more seamlessly.
19. Include a typical section detail for the Route 20 improvements. Note that CG -7 is required on Route 20, and
Avon Street Ext. if improvements are warranted. Also provide the VDOT WP -2 detail and note on plans the
required area of mill and overlay in accordance with the WP -2 standard for Route 20 and Avon Street Ext.
20. Please notate that the new curbing along Route 20 will be "nosed -down" at the ends.
21. Clarify what is proposed for the existing stone and slate steps on Route 20. "VDOT-S"? Show the new
configuration of the steps does not impede the clear zone.
22. With respect to the proposed 35' radius cul-de-sac, note that the minimum radius of 45' can only be reduced
when specifically approved by the County in consultation with emergency services. See Appendix B(1) page B(1)-
25.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
Will Cockrell
From:
Alexander Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent:
Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:22 AM
To:
Will Cockrell
Subject:
RE: Spring Hill Village SDP201600029
Will,
I spoke with Michael Vieira who is the engineer conducting the construction plan review for the ACSA. This is a separate
process that runs parallel to the final site plan review where we ensure the utilities meet our construction standards. It
looks like we received a submittal in May and comments were returned in June. There has been no resubmittal to the
ACSA since then. They will need to submit a construction plan review package for the new alignments. They can submit 3
copies of the plan along with water and sewer data sheets to the ACSA, Attn: Michael Vieira, PE.
During this review we interface directly with the applicant until all of our comments are addressed. Once they are we
issue a construction approval to the applicant (for water and sewer utilities) and I recommend approval of the final site
plan.
Let me know if you have any questions about the process. I don't mind explaining on the phone so you understand our
process.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
From: Will Cockrell[mailto:wcockrell@albemarle.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:05 PM
To: Alexander Morrison
Subject: Spring Hill Village SDP201600029
Sorry for another email but had a question for you,
I received updated plans from the folks doing Spring Hill Village, where they tweaked the roadway alignment within the
site. Other than the road, there were no other substantive changes. In the transition from Rachel to me, I didn't realize
that I probably should have sent you the updated plans. I couldn't tell if you reviewed the original plans from the first
submittal. I got the new plans on January 4th
I scanned the old and new layouts, so you can get an idea of what they changed. Page 1 is the old and page 2 is the new.
Did you want to review the new road layout? If so, I can drop off the plans.
Thanks and sorry for missing that,
Will
Will Cockrell, AICD
On-Call County Planner
Albemarle County, Community Development
or 434-296-5832 ext.3088
Will Cockrell
From: Matthew Wentland
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:19 AM
To: Will Cockrell
Subject: Planning Application Review for SDP201600029 Spring Hill Village Final.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number = SDP201600029
Reviewer = Matthew Wentland
Review Status = Requested Changes
Completed Date= 01/24/2017
This email was sent from County View Production.
Based on plan dated 1-4-17:
1. An approved WPO submittal will be required before site plan approval.
2. An approved road plan submittal will be required before site plan approval.
3. Provide bumper blocks where parking is adjacent to sidewalks less than 6' wide and where retaining walls are
located closer than 2' to the curb.
4. It is recommended to obtain temporary easements or agreements for any offsite grading.
5. It appears a permanent offsite easement may be required for the retaining walls next to the property line.
Engineered wall plans may be required to verify that no portion of the wall (such as geogrid) is located offsite.
Also provide typical wall details on the plans.
6. Engineering recommends fencing or railing on retaining walls due to safety issues.
7. Show all drainage easements on the plans. D3-1 to D3, 51-1, M2, and Al2-Al 1 appear to be missing
easements.
Will Cockrell
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:39 AM
To: Will Cockrell
Subject: RE: ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Req. 1-10-16
Yes, I picked it up.
From: Will Cockrell[mailto:wcockrell@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Subject: RE: ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Req. 1-10-16
Hi Justin,
Since your email, I left some plans in the County's mailing room. Did you all get that?
Will
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT) [mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Will Cockrell <wcockrell@albemarle.ore>; Elaine Echols <EECHO LS@albemarle.ore>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore @vdot.virginia.gov>; Alan Franklin<afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>;
'mkeller@terraconceptspc.com' <mkeller@terraconceptspc.com>
Subject: ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Req. 1-10-16
Will & Elaine,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Request, which includes the following
comment.
While we have seen various layouts and sketches of proposed plan changes through email exchanges, we have
not received an official submission to perform a formal review of the new layout. Additionally, we have not
received the required Access Management exception request for entrance spacing.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
Will Cockrell
From: Alan Franklin, PE <alan@alanfranklinpe.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:36 AM
To: 'peel, Justin (VDOT)'
Cc: Will Cockrell
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Access Forms
Attachments: Spacing Exception Form (site entrance & Parham entrance) Spring Hill.pdf; corner
clearance Exception for Route 20 site entrance and internal intersection.pdf
Justin,
Sorry for the delay. These were completed back in October but never got turned in. What else would be helpful?
Alan
From: w.wuensch@epr-pc.com [mailto:w.wuensch@epr-pc.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 3:01 PM
To:'Alan Franklin, PE' <aIan@a lanfranklinpe.com>
Cc: 'Vito Cetta' <vitocetta@mac.com>
Subject: Spring Hill Access Forms
Hi Alan and Vito,
Attached are two pdf files for the access management exception requests for Spring Hill. Apologies for the delay in
getting these out.
These address:
1. Corner clearance for first internal intersection near the entrance on Route 20
2. Access spacing from the Route 20 entrance and Parham entrance
We'll be ready to quickly respond to Adam Moore if he has any questions as he is reviewing these. I'm not sure if he
still has the project TIA and Synchro files but if requested we'll send those along ASAP. At this point I'm assuming that
Alan will coordinate this with Adam, though if you'd like for me to coordinate directly with Adam then I'd be happy to do
that.
Thanks and please advise if you all have any questions.
Bill
Bill Wuensch, P.E., PTOE
Principal Transportation Engineer/Planner
(434)202-5082 (office)
(804) 647-7700 (cell- preferred)
EPR, P.C.
637 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
www.epr-I)c.com
Will Cockrell
From:
Elaine Echols
Sent:
Tuesday, January 10, 2017 4:07 PM
To:
Will Cockrell
Subject:
FW: ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Req. 1-10-16
Could you coordinate with David tomorrow on this?
From: Deel, Justin (VDOT)[mailto:Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Will Cockrell <wcockrell@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>
Cc: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Ada m.Moore @vdot.virginia.gov>, Alan Franklin <afranklin@waterstreetstudio.net>;
'mkeller@terreconceptspc.com' <mkeller@terraconceptspc.com>
Subject: ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Req. 1-10-16
Will & Elaine,
Attached is our review letter for ZMA201300017 Spring Hill Village Variation Request, which includes the following
comment.
While we have seen various layouts and sketches of proposed plan changes through email exchanges, we have
not received an official submission to perform a formal review of the new layout. Additionally, we have not
received the required Access Management exception request for entrance spacing.
Justin
Justin Deel, P.E.
Land Development Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
434-422-9894
540-717-1408 (c)
Will Cockrell
From: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 10:10 AM
To: Will Cockrell
Cc: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: RE: Spring Hill Village
We haven't seen that new layout before.
Adam J. Moore, P.E. I Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
701 N'DOT Way I Charlottesville I VA
main 434.422.9782
From: Will Cockrell[mailto:wcockrell@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:52 AM
To: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT)
Cc: Megan Yanlglos
Subject: Spring Hill Village
Hello Adam,
I had a question for you, regarding Spring Hill Village. In order to get this on the next Board Agenda, I needed to get it in
the system next week. I didn't want to do that until I knew you all we ok with the road changes, as seen in the attached.
When Rachel left, I thought we sent you a copy of the proposed road alignments, but I wanted to confirm, as that
transition was a little hectic. If you did receive and needed more time, that's fine. I'm just trying to see if we can get this
into the next Board Packet or if I needed to hold off.
Thanks,
Will
Will Cockrell, AICP
On -Call County Planner
Albemarle County, Community Development
or 434-296-5832 ext.3088
tr�l
Will Cockrell
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Will Cockrell
Cc: Rachel Falkenstein
Subject: FW: ES reference documents (including 2017 deadlines) now available on IA
I know you checked -out the Executive Summary binder, but here's another resource you may reference as you work on
the Spring Hill Village variations.
J.T.
From: Louise Wyatt
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:58 AM
To: Leadership Council <LeadershipCouncil@albemarle.org>; County Executives Office <COB-
4THFLOOR@albemarle.org>; OMB <OMB@albemarle.org>; Alyssa Mezzoni <amezzoni@albemarle.org>; Amanda
Burbage <aburbage@albemarle.org>; Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE@albemarle.org>; Amy Smith
<ASmith@albemarle.org>; Andrew Lowe <alowe@albemarle.org>; Andy Bowman <abowman@albemarle.org>; Andy
Herrick <aherrick@albemarle.org>; Andrew Slack <aslack@albemarle.org>; Betty Burrell <bburrell@albemarle.org>; Bill
Letteri <bletteri@albemarle.org>; Bill Fritz <BFRITZ@albemarle.org>; Bob Crickenberger <BCRICKE@albemarle.org>;
Brenda Neitz <bneitz@albemarle.org>; Brent Nelson <bnelson@albemarle.org>; Ches Goodall
<cgoodall@albemarle.org>; Christopher Perez <cperez@albemarle.org>; Cynthia Jones "Police"
<jonesc@albemarle.org>; Dan Eggleston <deggleston@albemarle.org>; Dan Mahon <DMAHON@albemarle.org>; David
Benish <DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Diane Mullins <DMULLINS@albemarle.org>; Doug Walker
<dwalker3@albemarle.org>; Tom Foley <tfoley@albemarle.org>; Emily Kilroy <ekilroy@albemarle.org>; Erika Castillo
<ecastillo@albemarle.org>; Faith McClintic <fmcclintic@albemarle.org>; Francis MacCall <FMACCALL@albemarle.org>;
Greg Harper <gharper@albemarle.org>; Jack Kelsey <JKELSEY@albemarle.org>; Jay Schlothauer
<JSCH LOTH @a lbemarle.org>; Jody Saunders <jsaunders@albemarle.org>; John Blair <jblair@albemarle.org>; John
Freeman <jfreeman@albemarle.org>; John Oprandy <joprandy@albemarle.org>; Jonathan Kern
<jkern@albemarle.org>; Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@aibemarle.org>; Kimberly Schick
<kshigeoka@albemarle.org>; Kirby Felts <kfelts@albemarle.org>; Kristy Shifflett <kshifflett4@albemarle.org>; Laura
Vinzant <Ivinzant@albemarle.org>; Lee Catlin <LCATLIN@albemarle.org>; Lindsay Harris <Iharris@albemarle.org>; Lisa
Breeden <lbreeden2@albemarle.org>; Lisa Busch <Ibusch@albemarle.org>; Lisa Thomas <Ithomas@albemarle.org>; Lori
Allshouse <lallshouse@albemarle.org>; Lorna Gerome <Igerome@albemarle.org>; Margaret Maliszewski
<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Megan Yaniglos
<myaniglos@albemarle.org>; Michael Freitas <mfreitas@albemarle.org>; Mike Wagner <WAGNERM@albemarle.org>;
Nicole Marshall <Marshalln@albemarle.org>; Pam Shifflett <PSHIFFL@albemarle.org>; Phyllis Savides
<psavides@albemarle.org>; Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; Rebecca Ragsdale
<rragsdale@albemarle.org>; Repp Glaettli <rglaettli@albemarle.org>; Richard DeLoria <rdeloria@albemarle.org>;
Robert Beck <BECKR@albemarle.org>; Ron Higgins <rhiggins@aibemarle.org>; Ron Lantz <lantzr@albemarle.org>, Ron
White <rwhite2@aibemarle.org>; Sarah Baldwin <sbaldwin@albemarle.org>; Scott Clark <Sclark@albemarle.org>; Scott
Lambert <slambert2@albemarle.org>; Sharon Taylor <STAYLOR@albemarle.org>; Stephanie Mallory
<smallory@albemarle.org>; Steven Allshouse <SAllshouse@albemarle.org>; Susan M. Stimart
<sstimart@albemarle.org>; Tammy Critzer <TCRITZER@albemarle.org>; Tex Weaver <TWeaver@albemarle.org>; Tia
Mitchell <tmitcheli@albemarle.org>, Timothy Hughes <THUG H ES@d I bemarle.org>; Todd Hopwood
<HOPWOODT@albemarle.org>; Tom Foley <tfoley@albemarle.org>; Tom Hanson <THANSON@albemarle.org>; Tom
LaBelle <tlabelle @albemarle.org>; Tonia Patton <TPATTON@albemarle.org>; Trevor Henry <thenry@albemarle.org>;
Greg Kamptner <GKamptne@albemarle.org>; Leadership Council<LeadershipCouncil@albemarie.org>; County
Executives Office <COB-4THFLOOR@albemarle.org>; County Attorney <CountyAttorney@albemarle.org>; David Hannah
<dhannah@albemarle.org>; Darrell Byers <byersd@aibemarle.org>; Miller Stoddard <stoddardm@albemarle.org>;
Terry Walls <wallst@albemarle.org>
Subject: ES reference documents (including 2017 deadlines) now available on IA
Good morning all,
All reference materials associated with writing an Executive Summary (ES) are now available on Inside Albemarle here.
(See below for a screenshot of how to navigate via drop-down menu). These references include the style guide,
deadlines, how to research previous ESs, and other support resources. Thank you to everyone who helped put together,
including Jody Saunders, Marsha Davis, and Claudette Borgersen. Please feel free to forward this to anyone I may have
missed, and also don't hesitate to contact me with any feedback on how we might improve this site. Happy writing and
reviewing!
-Louise
INSIDE searc�► .� sus
Louise Wyatt
Organizational Development Manager
Office of the County Executive
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5841 Ext. 3894
Will Cockrell
From: Rachel Falkenstein
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:53 AM
To: Alan Franklin
Cc: Will Cockrell
Subject: SDP2016-29 Spring Hill Village
Alan,
Will Cockrell (copied) will be your contact for my projects while I am out. As we discussed, Will has distributed the
variation request for Spring Hill Village to VDOT and Engineering for their review. Once he has their comments back he
will be able to let you know if we can support this request and'can schedule it for the BOS.
I'll let Will know to keep an eye on my mailbox for this site plan resubmittal as well.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel Falkenstein, AICP
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3272
Mark Keller
From: Mark Keller <mkeller@terraconceptspc.com>
Sent Tuesday, November 29, 2016 9:17 AM
To: 'Mark Keller'
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Attachments: 11-8-16, Rev. Code of Development.doc; 11-8-16, Rev. Code Sections.doc
From: Mark Keller [mailto:mkeller@terraconceptspc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 10:13 AM
To: 'Alan Franklin, PE'; 'Vito Cetta'
Subject: RE: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Alan -
Attached find the requisite revisions to the cone of Development for Spring Creek Village. I noticeo in ner emau tnat
Rachel was requesting "excerpt" sections of the code that may have changed. I am including 2 files. The first is the Code
cover sheet with a new revision date on it and the two pages that follow cover the areas in Sections 3 and 8 that have
been updated. Wherever a text change was made that location was made BOLD and is now UNDERLINED. Where a
section of text was deleted and not replaced those areas have been placed within PERENS and are ITALICIZED.
In Section 3 the alterations made were to the Density Table to reflect numerous very small acreage changes in a number
of Blocks as one change to the Phasing.
In Section 8 there were changes to text and acreage to reflect the latest Amenity Area tally as well as the reduction in the
number of pocket parks.
I should mention, because it may be productive to restate in the resubmission, that each of these changes (except the
Phase 2 to Phase 1 change for Block C) could have been done without changing the Code. The Code was designed to
have some degree of flexibility (mentioned in both Sections) and each of these changes was within the approved
limitations.
Let me know if you need a hand pulling this together.
-Mark
From: Alan Franklin, PE[mailto:alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:56 AM
To: 'Vito Cetta'; Mark Keller
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Vito,
got my computer fixed and I'm back in business. I will work on the plan changes today. Are you working on the
application and written request? And Mark on the Code of Development?
Alan
From: Rachel Falkenstein[mailto:rfalkenstein@albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 201610:24 AM
To: Alan Franklin, PE <alan@alanfranklinpe.com>
Cc: 'Vito Cetta' <vitocetta@me.com>; Mark Keller <mkeller@terraconceptspc.com>
Subject: RE: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Alan,
I circulated this around to a few staff members including engineering and we see no issues with it ,: long as VDOT is ok
with the change.
You will need to submit the application and fee �f-rr � variation and the following items:
+ 3 copies of the existing approved plan illustrating the area where the change is requested or the applicable
section(s) of the Code of Development. Provide a graphic representation of the requested change.
• 1 copy of a written request specifying the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is
sought, and state the reason for the requested variation.
You should also use this time to make the change to the phasing. I noticed that the attached plan still lists Block C as
Phase 2, yet you are showing this in phase 1 on your site plan. Please include the change in phasing with your variation
request.
If you have anything in writing from VDOT stating they support the change in road layout, please include that with your
request. If not, I'll have to seek their input as part of my review.
Thanks,
Rachel
From: Alan Franklin, PE fmailto:alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:07 AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein albemarle.or >
Cc:'Vito Cetta' <vitocetta@me.com>; Mark Keller <mkellerEterraconceptspc.com>
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Rachel,
Please find the attached revised Application /Block plan that would accompany the variance request we discussed last
week. It would be great if you could give a quick look over and also let us know what else we need to include with the
application.
Thanks,
Alan Franklin
(434) 531-5544
From: Vito Cetta [mailto:vitocetta@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:59 AM
To: Alan Franklin, PE <alan@alanfranklinpe.com>
Subject: Re: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Alan, This looks great and I would forward to her but don't do any more until we hear from her.
Vito
On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Alan Franklin, PE <alanAalanfranklinpe.com> wrote:
Vito,
Here is the revised Application Plan that we can forward to Rachel for quick review prior to submiLLdl.
We probably need to revise the Code to match. Maybe Rachel could let us know of any other
requirements.
Rachel Falkenstein
From: Rachel Falkenstein
Sent: Thursday, October 20,2016 10:24 AM
To: 'Alan Franklin, PE'
Cc: 'Vito Cetta; Mark Keller
Subject: RE: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Alan,
I circulated this around to a few staff members including engineering and we see no issues with it as long as VDOT is ok
with the change.
You will need to submit the application and fee for a variation and the following items:
• 3 copies of the existing approved plan illustrating the area where the change is requested or the applicable
section(s) of the Code of Development. Provide a graphic representation of the requested change.
1 copy of a written request specifying the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is
sought, and state the reason for the requested variation.
You should also use this time to make the change to the phasing. I noticed that the attached plan still lists Block C as
Phase 2, yet you are showing this in phase 1 on your site plan. Please include the change in phasing with your variation
request.
If you have anything in writing from VDOT stating they support the change in road layout, please include that with your
request. If not, I'll have to seek their input as part of my review.
Thanks,
Rachel
From: Alan Franklin, PE[mailto:alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 201611:07 AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>
Cc: 'Vito Cetta' <vitocetta@me.com>; Mark Keller <mkeller@terraconceptspc.com>
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Rachel,
Please find the attached revised Application /Block plan that would accompany the variance request we discussed last
week. It would be great if you could give a quick look over and also let us know what else we need to include with the
application.
Thanks,
Alan Franklin
(434) 531-5544
From: Vito Cetta mailto:vitocetta@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 201610:59 AM
To: Alan Franklin, PE <alan@alanfranklinpe.com>
Subject: Re: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Alan, This looks great and Y would forward to her but don't do any more until we hear from her.
Vito
On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Alan Franklin, PE <alanralanfranklin e.com> N,,rote:
Vito,
Here is the revised Application Plan that we can forward to Rachel for quick review prior to submittal.
We probably need to revise the Code to match. Maybe Rachel could let us know of any other
requirements.
Alan
Rachel Falkenstein
From:
Matthew Wentland
Sent:
Thursday, October 20,2016 10:11 AM
To:
Rachel Falkenstein
Subject:
RE: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
I showed it to Frank and we're good with it.
From: Rachel Falkenstein
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 201610:09 AM
To: Matthew Wentland <mwentland@albemarle.org>
Subject: RE: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Hey Matt,
Just checking in on this. i assume you have no issues with the proposal based on our conversation?
Thanks,
Rachel
From: Rachel Falkenstein
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 11:35 AM
To: Matthew Wentland <mwentland albemarle.or >
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Matt,
Spring Hill Village is considering changing their road layout to the attached plan. Rather than one continuous, curving
road connecting Avon and Rt 20 they are proposing now two roads with a three-way intersection (between Road A and
Road D as shown). Would there be any concerns with this layout for the proposed private roads shown? Is making two
90 degree turns with no stop sign or intersection acceptable?
The proposed change requires a variation, but they want to know if they have our support before submitting this. I left a
hard copy of the plan in your chair and marked the area of change in red.
Thanks,
Rachel
From: Alan Franklin, PE[mailto:alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:07 AM
To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.ore>
Cc: 'Vito Cetta' <vitocetta@me.com>, Mark Keller <mkeller@terraconceptspc.com>
Subject: FW: Spring Hill Village revised Application Plan
Rachel,
Please find the attached revised Application /Block plan that would accompany the variance request we discussed last
week. It would be great if you could give a quick look over and also let us know what else we need to include with the
application.
Thanks,
Alan Franklin
(434) 531-5544
From: Vito Cetta fmailto:vitocetta@me.com_
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 201610:59 AM
To: Alan Franklin, PE <alan@alanfranklinpe.com>
Subject: Re: Spring Hili Village revised Application Plan
Alan, This looks great and I would forward to her but don't do any more until we hear from her.
Vito
On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Alan Franklin, PE <alannalanfranklin e.com> wrote:
Vito,
Here is the revised Application Plan that we can forward to Rachel for quick review prior to submittal.
We probably need to revise the Code to match. Maybe Rachel could let us know of any other
requirements.
Alan
Rachel Falkenstein
From:
Moore, Adam PE (VDOT) <Adam.Moore@vdot.virginia.gov>
Sent:
Monday, August 08, 2016 8:21 AM
To:
Vito Cetta; Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Cc:
Alan Franklin, PE; Rachel Falkenstein
Subject:
RE: Spring Hill Village meeting
Vito,
Yes, due to the entrance being a proffered condition and the requirement in those same proffers that left and right turn
lanes be constructed this office will support an access management exception for entrance spacing. That exception is
really the only thing outside of the plans that needs to be completed. Alan I'm sure knows the necessary forms and
information required to be included.
Adam J. Moore, P.E. I Assistant Resident Engineer/Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
i Ol N -DOT \\'ar I Charlottesville I` A
main 434.422.9782
From: Vito Cetta [mailto:vitocetta@me.com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 7:13 AM
To: Moore, Adam PE (VDOT); Deel, Justin (VDOT)
Ce: Alan Franklin, PE; Falkenstein Rachel
Subject: Spring Hill Village meeting
Adam and Justin, I wrote you 10 days ago concerning the Route 20 access and have not heard back. To repeat
the issue:
It is my understanding that you 2 met with Rachel concerning the VDOT access off of route 20 and it is my
understanding that you are reconsidering allowing an entrance on to Route 20. What paper work is needed for
me to apply for that access. Thank you.
Vito Cetta, aia
2635 South Bennington Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
home: 434-296-0003
cell: 434-531-2192
vitocetta(@-mac.com
^~
a
/
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
August 4, 2017
Mr. Will Cockrell
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
David Benish
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP -2016-029; Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan Re -Submittal
Dear Will, Rachel, and David,
As you are aware, VDOT provided site plan comments in January that proved to cause large scale
revisions to the site plan. All of the road grades required re -grading, which rippled through every aspect of
the plan set. It has taken quite of bit of time to recover from these comments. The attached plan set
represents the "recovery" from the VDOT comments provided in January. I met with Justin and Adam of
VDOT to review the revised road grades prior to finalizing the site plan revision so I am comfortable that
the associated Variation request and Final Site Plan review can continue at this point.
Please find the attached six copies of the plan for distribution to Engineering, Planning, Zoning/Building,
Fire/Rescue, ARB, and VDOT. Please ensure that the plan set identified for VDOT is delivered to
Justin/Adam because it includes additional information that they requested. Please feel free to call with
any questions or request for additional information.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Franklin, PE
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 ( E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
August 4, 2017
Mr. Justin Deel/Adam Moore, PE
VDOT
RE: SDP -2016-029; Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan Review #21
Dear Justin and Adam,
This letter is to accompany the revised Final Site Plan submittal which attempts to address your
comments/conditions outlined your letter on January 26, 2017. 1 feel that most of the comments are
addressed adequately, however, there are still some issues to resolve and i look forward to working with
you to resolve them.
VDOT
1. Previous comments addressed/acknowledged...
Response: Comment response letter provided and plans signed and sealed.
2. Access Management exception request needs to be approved...
Response: Hopefully, the revised plans enable continuation of exception request
consideration.
3. Show ADT, ROW, etc...
Response: All requested information has been added to Layout Plan Sheets 5 & 6.
4. Road A ROW should not extend beyond Road D ROW at intersection.
Response: Road A public ROW limits revised. May need more labeling.
5. Provide intersection sight distance profiles on plans....
Response: Sight Line Profile Sheet provided as an Addendum to the plan set separately at this
time. Sheettsheets will be added to the set at the next submittal. The format will also change to
Plan/Profile for each intersection. I hope that this interim format is acceptable. I can meet with
you to review prior to your next comment letter so we can discuss any other revisions needed.
It can be emailed if they get lost in the transfer from the County.
6. Intersection sight lines/Design Speed.
Response: internal road profiles and sight lines design speed has been increased to 25 mph..
7. Trak signs not shown....
Response: Stop signs and street signs have been added and identified on Layout Plan Sheet 5
& 6. Any additional required signs will be added as requested.
8. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
Response: A pavement calculation spreadsheets have been included as an attachment. They
can be emailed if they get lost in the transfer from the County.
9. Dry gutter grading and contour labels....
Response: Plan improvements made regarding this concern but more should be done prior to
next submittal.
10. Restriction of on street parking, particularly on Road E.....
Response: Steep grades and dense driveway spacing limit on -street parking on the proposed
public roads so the proposed road sections do not accommodate on -street parking. Road E is a
private alley.
11. Clarify typical road sections....
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.00m
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
Response: Typical road sections have been revised as shown on Sheet 8 to address this
concern. Public road widths to be 24' with no accommodation for on -street parking for the
reasons provided above.
12. Road section calls for 29' and plan shows 24'
Response: Road section in question removed from plan..
13. Please correct the North Arrows.
Response: North Arrows corrected.
14. Please include turn lane warrants on the plan...
Response: Turn lane warrants were provided in the TIA for rezoning. They have not been
added to the plans as of yet. I will try to forward you an electronic copy of the TIA for your use.
At that time, no improvements to Avon were warranted and the improvements on Route 20 were
mostly required by the potential for commercial development which is no longer planned. The
plans have been revised to reflect the VDOT requirements, as well as our meetings except that
the left turn storage is still proposed at 100'. 1 did not have enough survey information to extend
the improvements to include the extra 100' of storage. Extra survey information and plan
revision to be provided if 200' of left tum storage is required. For now, please consider request
to only provide 100' of left turn storage as shown on plans and TIA.
15. Gutter pan width should not be included in ?2' required width....
Response: Route 20 improvement revisions made per comments and meetings. More revision
may be required.
16. The northern curb return at the Parham entrance should be offset 12'....
Response: The frontage improvements increased significantly. 1 feel that this comment is now
close to be addressed. Slight revisions may be required. Please advise.
17. Provide and show appropriate dimensions for the shifting tapers.
Response: See Sheets 5 and 6..
18. Please consider a layout that allows the Route 20 improvements to be viewed more seamlessly.
Response: Viewports have been added to Sheet 7.
19. Include a typical section for Route 20 improvements..
Response: Section added to Sheet 8.
20. Please notate new curbing on Route 20 to nose -down" at ends...
Response: Notations have been added to Sheet 7.
21. Clarify what is proposed for the existing stone stairs on Route 20.
Response: They are in the ROW and are now proposed to be removed.
22. 35' cul de sac radius concerns with emergency services....
Response: Perhaps since there is a connection to Road C, Fire/Rescue has not had an issue.
23. Comment provided in email regarding adding 5 mph to sight distances on Route 20.
Response: Addressed.
We hope that you find this information useful in your consideration for approval. I understand that your
comments may not be completely satisfied and further revisions required. Please feel free to call (434)
531-5544. or email with any questions or request for additional information.
Sincperely,
in
e, 1111A�
Alan G. Franklin, PE
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
j Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfrankdinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
January 6, 2017
Mr. Will Cockrell
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP -2016-029; Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan Re -Submittal
Dear Will,
I understand that you are taking over review of this project from Rachel in her absence.
This letter is to accompany the re -submittal of Final Site Plan with the adjustments to the road/site layout
as requested in the Variance to the rezoning Block Plan as discussed with Rachel on the phone prior to
her leave from the County. As discussed, this revised plan set reflects the changes to the Layout,
Grading, Landscape, Utility, and Road Profile Sheets only. It is our hope to receive County and VDOT
feedback on the revised plan set as submitted prior to finalizing the storm calculations, storm drain
profiles, waterline profiles, and sewer profiles.
Please find the attached six copies of the plan for distribution to Engineering, Planning, Zoning/Building,
Fire/Rescue, ARB, etc. Please feel free to call with any questions or request for additional information.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Franklin, PE
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.wm
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-3088 _ _ Fax (434) 972-0126
Date: January 10, 2017
Matthew Wentland
County Engineering
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Regarding:
Project Name: SDP2016-00029
Date Submitted: 1/6/2017
Matt:
Attached is a re -submittal for the Spring Hill Crossing site plans. Let me know if you have any
issues.
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.
Thank you,
Will Cockrell
Community Development
On -Call Planner
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department Community Development
Planning Services Division
401 McIntire Road North Wing - Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
ep-MOR Phone: (434) 296-5823 - Fax: (434) 972-4035
Transmittal
From: Will Cockrell Date: 01/10/17
To: 0 Adam Moore - VDOT
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
10
JOB #/FILE NAME: SDP201600029
We are sending you the following items: ® Attached or ❑ Under separate cover
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Prints ® Plans
❑ Plats ❑ Specifications ❑ Other
# of Date Description
Copies
1 1/10/2017 Spring Hill Village Site Plan
These are transmitted as checked below:
For review and comments ISI For
Remarks:
Continents are due in City View or email by:
Other
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
SUBMITTAL SHEET
This form must be returned with any revisions or drop-offs to ensure proper tracking and
distribution. If you need to submit additional information, please explain at the bottom of this
form. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted
for sub_ mitt Af
TO: � !I r�G �� c ll rvL` j. ATE: Z4 ILI 2
PROJECT NAME--
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions
Boundary Line Adjustment
Easement Plat
Family Division
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Special Lot
Rural Subdivision
VSMP PIan
VESCP Plan
Initial Site Plan
Final Site Plan
Major Amendment to Site Plan
Minor Amendment to Site Plan
Architectural Review Board
Other
Additional Information:
County Project Number #Copies
'>/b -U zI
10/22/15
Z51196114' Is
CONCEPTS, ]PC
DATE: November 29, 2016
TO: Albemarle County Zoning Office
FROM: Mark Keller — Terra Concepts, PC
RE: Spring HIII Village — ZMA 2013-00017 — Variation Request
The information below is intended to accompany the Application for Variations and Approved Plans, Codes
and Standards of Development for the above project.
Variations Being Sought:
After approval of the rezoning, and as a part of their review of the Initial Site Plan for Phase 1 of this
project, VDOT decided to revisit their approval of the planned road system. Numerous iterations and option
were explored with VDOT and a consensus was finally reached. The result was that sections of internal
road were realigned. This resulted in changes to acreages of adjacent Blocks as well as Green and
Amenity Space. All of the acreage impacts were within the ranges permitted by the Code of Development.
However, since tables listing these acreages are found on the same drawing (Block Plan -Sheet 3) as the
road realignment, these figures were also updated.
Collaterally, several housekeeping matters were addressed. First, in the Density Table at the top right of
the Block Plan, Block C had been listed to be in Phase 2. The submitted Initial Site Plan included all of
Phase 1 and Block C as well. Staff requested that we change Block C's designation to Phase 1 instead.
This was done. Finally, a note was added to the bottom of the Amenity and Green Space Calculations table
on this sheet.
Since some of this data is also reflected in the Code of Development in Sections 3 and 8, for consistency,
we chose to make commensurate updates in the code as well.
Reasons & Justifications
VDOT determined that two 90 degree intersections, as opposed to the approved curvilinear main road
alignment, would better serve the community in terms of safety and would be more likely to discourage cut -
through traffic between Avon Street Extended and Route 20. By and large we were able to accommodate
the design changes they requested within the limitations outlined in the approved Code of Development, so
we feel that the proposed changes remain consistent with prior approvals and the Code for this property.
That said, we did choose to make the above housekeeping changes associated with comments received
during initial site plan review at this time.
MASTER & SITE PLANNING / ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING / LANDSCAPE ARCIFIiTECTURE
2046 Rock Quarry Road Louisa, Virginia 23093 - 434-531-3600 - mkeller@terraconceptspc.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
May 9, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP -2015-059; Spring Hill Village - Final Site Plan First Submittal
Dear Rachel,
This letter is to accompany the first Final Site Plan submittal and serve as response to
comments/conditions outlined in the Initial Site Plan approval letter on January 19, 2016:
Planning Division
1. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. Any
subdivision related comments are provided for reference only (unless necessary for site plan
approval), and to convey the issues that will arise when/if a new subdivision plat and road plans
are submitted.
Response: No action required.
[32.5.2(a)] Zoning district and magisterial district are switched in notes on sheet 2. Please revise.
Response: This has been corrected.
0[32.5 2(a)] Include Entrance Corridor (EC) in zoning designation.
� Response: EC note added to zoning designation.
/4. [32.5.2(x)] If any waivers or special exceptions were previously approved with the rezoning
application, list them on the plan with approved conditions, if any.
Response: Our records indicate that there were no previously approved waivers or special
exceptions.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Some setbacks shown on the plan are not consistent with the Code of
Development. Please amend or submit variation request for the change. The following
inconsistencies were found.
• Block A shows a 10' front setback adjacent to Route 20; COD requires 25'-1
• Bock A shows a 10' rear setback; COD requires 15'
•Wislock D shows 20' rear setback (sheet 2 only); COD requires 15'
Bock E shows 5' front setback; COD requires 5'
Blocksho 1 requires, 5
q
front setback COD re '
Ah,E P
Response: Setbacke-een corrected to match the COD.
QJ -[32.5.2(a)] Label rear setback for Block C (COD requires 32' setback).
Response: The rear setback for Block C has been labeled T is setback was intended for
r measure from the rear property line.
T. [32.5.2(b)] Provide acreages of all proposed lots.
Response: This will done on the next revision once we are more certain that lot layout
/ revisions will not be necessary.
V8. [32.5.2(b)] Amend density note to include proposed density in addition to permitted density.
Response: The density notes on Sheet 2 have been revised as requested.
[32.5.2(b)] List maximum height of all structures.
II 427 Cranberry Lane ! PHONE (434) 531-5544
J Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
Response: A table of maximum height of structures allowed in each Block has been added to
Sheet 2.
10. [32.5.2(c)] The phasing plan shows Block C as part of phase 2, yet site plan sheets appear to
show this block as part of the phase 7 improvements. Please clarify. A variation may be needed
to change from phasing approved on the application plan.
Response: The phases listed on the Application Plan refer more to building construction than
site development. 90% of the site development will be accomplished as part of phase 1. The
only items remaining for future phases are the buildings of Blocks A and B.
Enaineerina Division
1. Before the Final Site Plan can be approved, this project will require approved VSMP and
Road Plans.
Response. VSMP application will be made separately in the near future. The development of
the E&S and SWM plans is reflected in these final site plans but the VSMP application is not
quite ready for submittal. This final site plan package contains all of the necessary information
for Road Plan review. Just prior to final approval a separate road plan application will be made
for bond calculation.
E1911
The applicant should contact mis office with a list of three (3) proposed road names for the
roads shown on the plans before final approval is given.
Response: Please consider the following road names. Others will be provided if needed.
Road A: Spring House Drive
Road B: Orchard View Court
Road C: Walton Way
Road D: Crescent Lane
Road E: Hillside Lane
Road F: Batten Road
Road G: Enterprise Drive
Inspections
1. Provided one, van -accessible, barrier -free parking space, with associated striped access
aisle and curb cut for access to the gazebo. This space should be the easternmost parking
space on the north side of Road 'C'.
Response: Van -accessible space added as requested.
Fire/Rescue
1. Fire flow test required before final approval.
Response: Request to ACSA for fire flow test included with plan submittal to ACSA.
ACSA
Applicant requests fire flow test data in vicinity of project.
VDOT
1. A sight line easement needs to be provided on the commercial parcel located at the
intersection Roads A and C.
Response: Sight line exhibits are included with the final plan application. Potential sight line
easements have been labeled on the plans.
2. A sight line easement needs to be provided on the main park parcel located at the
427 Cranberry Lane I PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 + E-MAIL alan@alanfranldinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
intersection of Roads A and C. it appears that several trees will obstruct available sight
distance as currently designed.
Response: Sight line exhibits are included with the final plan application. Potential sight line
easements have been labeled on the plans. The trees in question have been relocated.
3. Has Emergency Services approved the 35'radius for the cul-de-sac of Road B?
Response: No action required at this time.
4. A sight line easement needs to be provided across Lot 70 and Pocket Park #3 to ensure
adequate sight distance for the intersection of Roads B and C.
Response: Sight line exhibits are included with the final plan application. Potential sight line
easements have been labeled on the plans.
5. A sight line easement needs to be provided across Lot 70 and Pocket Park #3 to ensure
adequate sight distance for the intersection of Roads B and C.
Response: Sight line exhibits are included with the final plan application. Potential sight line
easements have been labeled on the plans.
6. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
Response: A pavement calculation spreadsheet has been included with the plans.
7. The typical street section for Road B shows an option for on -street parking on one side of
the road. The plan should indicate which side of the road parking will be allowed_
Response: The optional typical street section for Road B allowing for parking on one side of the
road has been revised to specify the only allowable parking locations.
8. The road profiles should show the station and elevation of each intersecting roadway.
Response: The station and elevation of each intersecting roadway has been added to the
profiles.
9. The K -values for crest and sag curves do not meet the minimum K -values for a design speed
of 25 mph.
Response: To accommodate the steep topography of the site, all proposed roadways within the
development have been designed using the AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very
Low -Volume Local Roads (ADT < 400) in accordance with the notes in Table 1 of the VDOT
Subdivision Street Design Guide (GS-SSAR). This strategy was implemented at the suggestion
of VDOT during the rezoning application review process to allow for road grades up to 14% to
aid with road interconnection between Avon Street Extended and Route 20. in addition to
allowing for steeper grades, this design strategy allows for 20 mph design speed for the
roadways. The K -values for all of the vertical curves of the proposed roadways meet the
minimum value allowable for 20 mph. This design strategy was memorialized on the Application
Plan as Note 4.
10. It appears that standard CD -1 's are required at approximately stations 10+50, 10+60,
16+80, and 18+60 of Road A.
Response: CD -1 s have been added to the profiles.
11. It appears that standard CD -1 's are required at approximately stations 10+30, 11+40, and
16+50 of Road B.
Response: CD -1s have been added to the profiles.
12. There appears to be low area in the curb and gutter at the intersection of Roads A and C that
will not drain. The area is on the northern side of the intersection going into the parking area in
front of lots 42-53.
Response: A section of curb and gutter has been specified as "dry" to eliminate this low point.
13, Storm structure B2 does not appear to be located at the low point based on contours provided.
Response: Inlet has been shifted to match contouring of low point.
427 Cranberry Lane I PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranidinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and Land Development Consulting
14. The waterline in the intersection of Roads A and C currently call for 2 bends. Can the waterline
be aligned differently to eliminate the need for one of the bends? Each bend creates the
potential for a leak to develop in the future.
Response: I missed this comment until it was too late for this revision. The waterline can and
will be adjusted to eliminate your concern on the next revision.
15. Can the valves to the fire hydrant assemblies be located behind the curb or in the planting
strip?
Response: The fire hydrant valves have been moved behind the curb.
16. Hydraulic calculations and storm sewer profiles need to be provided for review.
Response: Hydraulic calculations and storm sewer profiles have been added to the plans.
ARB
Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30.6.4c(2), (3) and (5):
1. Remove the footprints of future phase buildings from the plan.
Response: Footprints of future phase building have been removed from plan.
2. A screening fence detail indicating size, material and color is needed in the plan. Vinyl with a
shiny surface is not an appropriate material for this fence.
Response: Fence detail added to the plans.
3. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to both the site and architectural plans. "Visibility of
all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated."
Response: The note has been added to the landscape plan Sheet 23.
4. Revise the landscape plan to key the trees on the plan to the plant schedule.
Response: The landscape plan has been revised to key the trees to the plant schedule.
5. Revise the spacing of large shade trees along the ECs to 35' on center.
Response: The spacing of the large shade trees has been revised.
6. Intersperse ornamental trees among the large shade trees that are proposed along the ECs.
Response: Ornamental trees have been added as requested.
7. Revise the plans to clearly show all utility lines with their associated easements. Provide sufficient
planting area, free of utilities and easements, along both ECs.
Response: }clans have been revised to eliminate landscape conflicts with utility lines and
easements.
8. Clarify the extent of tree removal and tree replacement planned with off-site work along the ECs.
Response: The off-site sewer routing is intended to run adjacent to Route 20 without the need to
clear significant swaths of existing trees. Using the Street View function of Google Maps shows
that the existing vegetation along Route 20 has encroached closely to the road shoulder. Most of
this vegetation is of poor quality and would not be a significant loss if removed because there is
significant vegetation remaining in place beyond the work limits. There is one section where there
is only a strip of vegetation between Route 20 and the adjacent parcel but we feel that we are not
impacting this area. This comment will require further investigation before we can confidently
assess the potential impact and propose any mitigation with the next plan revision. Additionally,
we will be seeking input from ACSA on the proposed sanitary sewer routing.
9. Revise the landscape plan to space the interior road trees no greater than 40' apart: Show how
an appropriate appearance for the EC will be maintained.
Response: The interior road tree spacing has been revised to 40' where possible. Certain site
elements such as water meters, fire hydrants, driveways, and storm structures.
10. Provide shrubs, minimum 24" high at planting, on the south side of the parking lot at Road C, to
screen the parked cars as viewed from the EC.
Response: Shrubs have been added.
11. Adjust the locations of trees south of lots 42-53 to remain outside of the sewer easement.
Response: Trees have been moved.
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
I
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering, Site Planning, and land Development Consulting
12. Add the standard plant health note to the plan All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at mature height the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs
and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant. "
Response: Note added to Sheet 23.
13. Provide material and color samples for the retaining walls. Indicate material and color on the site
plan.
Response: Information to be provided at a later date.
14. Revise the plan to show a temporary landscape treatment for the sediment basin located at the
southeast corner of the property to establish an appropriate appearance for the EC.
Response: Temporary landscape treatment added. See Sheet 21.
15. Clarify phasing on the plan, including related landscape development.
Response: All landscaping shown will be installed as part of phase 1.
We hope that you find this information useful in your consideration for approval. Please feel free to call
with any questions or request for additional information.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Franklin, PE
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434) 531-5544
Crozet, Virginia 22932 I E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone 434 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
2/2/2016
Alan Franklin
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, VA 22902
RE: SDP2015-59 Spring Hill Village — Initial Site Development Plan
Dear Mr. Franklin:
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.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $1,613
Please submit 8 copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The assigned
Lead Reviewer will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies (for ACSA lease submit 3 copies
of construction plans directly to them as stated in their comments). once you receive the first set of
comments on the final site plan, please work with each reviewer individually to satisfy their
requirements.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for
signature until tentative approvals for the attached conditions from the following agencies/reviewers
have been obtained:
SRC Members:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) - 2 copies [Rachel Falkenstein,
rfalkenstein@albemarle.org]
Albemarle County Engineering Services -1 copy [Matt Wentland, mwentland albemarle.or ]
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)-1 copy [Andy Slack, aslack@albemarle.org]
Albemarle County Planning Services (ARB)- 1 copy [Margaret Maliszewski,
mmaliszewski@albemarle.org]