HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600029 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2017-10-27Phone 434-296-5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Alan Franklin (alan@alanfrankinpe.com)
From: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 16, 2016
October 27,2017
Subject: SDP 2016-29 Spring Hill Village — Final Site Development Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Initial Aaaroval
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.
Final: No action required.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning district and magisterial district are switched in notes on sheet 2. Please revise.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Include Entrance Corridor (EC) in zoning designation.
Final: Comment not addressed
Rev1: Comment not addressed
4. [32.5.2(a)] If any waivers or special exceptions were previously approved with the rezoning
application, list them on the plan with approved conditions, if any.
Final: Comment addressed.
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'
• Block A shows a 10' rear setback; COD requires 15'
Final: Setbacks are no longer shown for Block A, which is in phase II. Setbacks do not need to
be shown at this time.
• Block D shows 20' rear setback (sheet 2 only); COD requires 15'
• Bock E shows a 15' front setback; COD requires 5'
Block F shows a 15' front setback; COD requires 5'
Final: It appears SBL has been changed to 5' but setback note still lists 15'.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Label rear setback for Block C (COD requires 32' setback).
Final: Comment not addressed.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide acreages of all proposed lots.
Final: Comment not addressed. Applicant plans to show on next revision.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
8. [32.5.2(b)] Amend density note to include proposed density in addition to permitted density.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] List maximum height of all structures.
Final: Comment addressed.
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 1 improvements. Please clarify. A variation will be needed to change from
phasing approved on the application plan.
Final: Comment not addressed. Submit a variation application to construct block C as part of Phase I.
Rev1: Variation application received; scheduled for BOS 12/6/2017
11. [32.5.2(d)] Slopes on existing conditions sheet should be relabeled as "managed steep slopes."
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Provide additional contour labels on grading sheets.
Final: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Show boundaries and label width of proposed alley easements.
Final: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Show locations of any proposed outdoor lighting. Include cut sheets and a photometric
plan with final site plan.
Final: Comment not addressed.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
15. [32.5.2(p)] Landscape calculations and schedule provided appear to be for a different project and do
not match the landscape plan sheets. Provide calculations and plant schedule matching the plan
shown. Include signed conservation checklist with landscape plan.
Final: Comment partially addressed. Include conservation checklist on landscape plan.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
16. [32.5.2(p)] Label width of landscaping and maintenance easements along northern and southern
property lines.
Final: Comment not addressed. FYI — these will need to be recorded with final plat.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
1i. iajiu SOD] Pro\juc ouilding elevations for proposed structures. List number of stories for
buildings proposed along Avon Street (COD requires 3 stories).
Final: Comment no longer applicable. No buildings are proposed along Avon Street.
18. [32.7.7] Provide more information about the proposed recreation areas on site including proposed
facilities and total square footage. Recreation areas shall be provided as required by section 4.16
Final: Comment not addressed. Please label areas that will be set aside as tot lots and provide a list
of equipment proposed. At minimum, for phase I, you need to provide a tot lot that is at least 2000
sq. ft. and includes the equipment listed in 4.16.2.1 (or approved substitutions). Please note that
with future phases, if the development exceeds 80 units, a second tot lot will be needed.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
19. [32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy required for the residential portions of this site is twenty (20)
percent. Provide calculations to show tree canopy requirement will be met for phase 1.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.7.2.2 & 14-409] All streets within the development shall be extended to abutting property lines to
provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands. Extend
streets as close as possible to property lines and provide right of way to property lines for future
extensions.
Final: Comment not addressed.
Rev1- Comment addressed.
21. [Comment] There seem to be a number of site distance conflicts at proposed intersections. These will
need to be resolved to the satisfaction of VDOT and engineering staff prior to final approval.
Final: Comment still applies.
22. [Comment] Off-site easements must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval
including easements for offsite utility connections and temporary construction easements if site work
will encroach upon neighboring properties.
Final: Comment still applies.
Final Site Plan Comments
1. [32.5.2] Road C is required to have curbs at the edge of the roadway and gutters shall be required
where necessary to direct stormwater runoff. The County engineer may waive or modify this
requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate swm/BMP facility design per section 4.12.15(g).
Please submit a request and justification for not constructing the curb/gutter along the roadway at this
time.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
2. [32.6.2(h)] Include signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
3. [32.6.2(i)] Parking calculations misstate the number of spaces in Block B and incorrectly refer to this
area as Road V. Please revise.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
4. [32.7.5.3] Any necessary easements for stormwater management and drainage need to be dedicated
prior to site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
5. [32.7.4.2] Proof of dedication of public water and sewer facilities for off-site access shall be provided
prior to final site plan approval.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
6. [32.7.9] 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.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
7. [32.7.9.9(d)] Provide instrument evidencing maintenance of required landscaping and street trees that
are outside of right-of-way. Easements over private lots that are necessary for required landscaping
should be shown on site plan and recorded with final subdivision plat.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
8. [COD] Provide proof of recordation of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
containing provisions listed in section 4.1 of COD.
Rev1: Comment not addressed
9. [Comment] This site plan cannot not be approved until Engineering, ACSA, VDOT, E911, and ARB staff
complete their reviews and grant their approval. E911, ARB, and Engineering comments (additional
engineering comments forthcoming) are attached. Additional reviewer's comments will be forwarded
upon receipt.
New Comment
A variation request was submitted on August 11 for changes related to the road layout and phasing.
Staff has reviewed the request and has no objections to the requested changes. The variation is
scheduled for Board review (consent agenda) on 12/6/2017.
Please contact Rachel Falkenstein in the Planning Division by using rfalkenstein@albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3272 for further information.
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SDP201600029
TMP: 09000-00-00-02800
DATE: 8/21/2017
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra@albemarle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/ads
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
The following road will need a names:
ROAD A
ROAD B
ROAD C ( ROAD C & G need to be the same name)
ROAD D
ROAD E does not need a road name
4 ?
Note: As this will be a main access even if the houses front Rio it will need a road name as
emergency vehicles stopping on Rio Rd could cause a safety issue as it is a main road with lots of
traffic.
This site will require a one (1) new private road name. Per Sec. 7-200-B of the County's Road
Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed
to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named."
Please review the procedures in the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual to decide upon
a road name for the road accessing Old Lynchburg Road.
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
https://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Geographic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual.pdf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: http://gisweb.albemarle.org/
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
�sa� pond
Charles A. t�ilpatrick, P.E.cuer y'r,fe s '
Commissioner
January 26, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Will Cockrell
Re: Spring Hill Village — Final Site Plan
SDP -2016-0D029
Review #2
Dear Mr. Cockrell:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Terra Concepts and Alan
Franklin, most recently revised 29 December 2016, and offers the following comments:
I. 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.
- 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.
.-The-Road--A ROW should not -extend -beyond -the -Road -1) ROW -at -the-intersectian.- --- -
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 I M sight distance lines should be 280 feet, minimum K -values should be
12 and 26 for crest and sag, respectively-
VirglniaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
January 26, 2017
Will Cockrell
Page 2
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 8346. 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 -tum 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.interseetion (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 an 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.
VirginiaDOT.arg .
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
January 26, 20I7
Will Cockrell
Page 3
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to'any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and'Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
W 0. 1qC'67t'--"
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�rY +
i l
b
� COMMAI
ONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
CuVw*. %rirph4 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.CamrtdnWmr
.lune 17, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planners t
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2016-00029 Spring Hill Village Final Site Plan n_� '
Dear Ms. Falkenstein, ��,al
We have reviewed the final site plan for Spring Hill Village dared 05109/20 6 as submitted by Terra
Concepts and offer the following comments:
1. The osed entrance on Route 20 does not meet entrance spaci g requirements. We
understand that shifting the entrance further south would pose stg t es. Due to
this and the redesign n cessary to address the below comments, we recommend eliminating
the Route 20 entrance. This'wou reipre an exception request for the secondary
access requirement, w 'ch we would sUp
2. a envision t at t e nat'o. of t o e tmtoute 4 entranoe will warrant improvements to
Avon Street Ext. Please include left- and right-tarn lane warrants for Avon Street Ext. in the
planset. Based on theproposed Route 20 improvements we offer the below general
comments to consider in design of any potential Avon Street Ext. improvements. Note that if i
the currently proposed plan including the Route 20 entrance is pursued, comments for those
specific improvements ca
"
a—. —Kiw t`Tirougri lanes should match the width of the existing through lanes
b. Turn lanes should match the width of the through lane
c. Please refer to Appendix F for entrance and tum lane configuration requirements.
3. 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 744
ADT; therefore, these guidelines cannot be used. The minimum design speed should be 25
mph, maximum slope should be no greater than I I%, sight distance lines should be 284 feet,
minimum K-values should be 12 and 26 for crest and sag, respectively.
4. There are multiple concerns with the shown sight distance lines of 225 feet; these issues are
likely to be further compounded once they are increased to 280 feet. Please consider the
following sight distance comments upon resubmission:
a. The proposed street trees shown on the plan appear to conflict with sight lines. Of
particular note are the street trees along the south side of Road A between the
intersection with Road "B" and the pocket park. See Road Design Manual Appendix
B(l)-45 & -46. there should be a 5' window between the shrubs and tree canopy
through which the sight litre passes.
b. Sight lines that art very near to structures will be difficult if not impossible to
maintain. Landscaping, porches, etc. will easily obstruct these sightlines. Note the
intersection of Road A and Road B is extremely close to the potential building
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�rY +
i l
b
� COMMAI
ONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
CuVw*. %rirph4 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.CamrtdnWmr
.lune 17, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planners t
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2016-00029 Spring Hill Village Final Site Plan n_� '
Dear Ms. Falkenstein, ��,al
We have reviewed the final site plan for Spring Hill Village dared 05109/20 6 as submitted by Terra
Concepts and offer the following comments:
1. The osed entrance on Route 20 does not meet entrance spaci g requirements. We
understand that shifting the entrance further south would pose stg t es. Due to
this and the redesign n cessary to address the below comments, we recommend eliminating
the Route 20 entrance. This'wou reipre an exception request for the secondary
access requirement, w 'ch we would sUp
2. a envision t at t e nat'o. of t o e tmtoute 4 entranoe will warrant improvements to
Avon Street Ext. Please include left- and right-tarn lane warrants for Avon Street Ext. in the
planset. Based on theproposed Route 20 improvements we offer the below general
comments to consider in design of any potential Avon Street Ext. improvements. Note that if i
the currently proposed plan including the Route 20 entrance is pursued, comments for those
specific improvements ca
"
a—. —Kiw t`Tirougri lanes should match the width of the existing through lanes
b. Turn lanes should match the width of the through lane
c. Please refer to Appendix F for entrance and tum lane configuration requirements.
3. 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 744
ADT; therefore, these guidelines cannot be used. The minimum design speed should be 25
mph, maximum slope should be no greater than I I%, sight distance lines should be 284 feet,
minimum K-values should be 12 and 26 for crest and sag, respectively.
4. There are multiple concerns with the shown sight distance lines of 225 feet; these issues are
likely to be further compounded once they are increased to 280 feet. Please consider the
following sight distance comments upon resubmission:
a. The proposed street trees shown on the plan appear to conflict with sight lines. Of
particular note are the street trees along the south side of Road A between the
intersection with Road "B" and the pocket park. See Road Design Manual Appendix
B(l)-45 & -46. there should be a 5' window between the shrubs and tree canopy
through which the sight litre passes.
b. Sight lines that art very near to structures will be difficult if not impossible to
maintain. Landscaping, porches, etc. will easily obstruct these sightlines. Note the
intersection of Road A and Road B is extremely close to the potential building
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
located on lot 71. When the sight lines are shown based on the minimum design
speed of 25 mph the sight line will certainly be obstructed by the potential
building(s).
c. There is not enough ground clearance for the left sight line of the intersection of Road
A and Road B.
d. Please include sight distance line profiles in the planset.
e. Sight line easements will be required for all locations that the sight line is not fully
located within proposed right of way.
E Note that the intersection sight line distance should be measured along the major
roadway, as opposed to the actual line of sight, See Appendix F, page 1;-34.
g. The left sight line of the Alley intersection with Road A and the right sight line of the
Road C intersection with Road A shows "170' Sight Line 15 mph" (please clarify). In
any event, these site lines should extend to the center of the Route 20 intersection.
5. Please show all traffic signs; none appear on this plan.
G. pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
7. Previous comment: "rhere 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."
Please provide further grading information showing that water drain away from the "dry
gutter". In addition, please provide more proposed contour labels on the grading plans.
S. VDOT does not recommend the restriction of on -street public parking, particularly Road E,
where only garage parking is available.
9. Clarify the typical section detail for.parking in front of lots 83-86. This does not appear on
the plan.
10. Please show Street Name, Route No., ADT, design speed, and public/private on all plans.
11. Please correct North Arrows.
If you have additional questions please contact Justin Deel at 434-282-8602.
Sincerely,
&A14' ` cut--
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
located on lot 71. When the sight lines are shown based on the minimum design
speed of 25 mph the sight line will certainly be obstructed by the potential
building(s).
c. There is not enough ground clearance for the left sight line of the intersection of Road
A and Road B.
d. Please include sight distance line profiles in the planset.
e. Sight line easements will be required for all locations that the sight line is not fully
located within proposed right of way.
E Note that the intersection sight line distance should be measured along the major
roadway, as opposed to the actual line of sight, See Appendix F, page 1;-34.
g. The left sight line of the Alley intersection with Road A and the right sight line of the
Road C intersection with Road A shows "170' Sight Line 15 mph" (please clarify). In
any event, these site lines should extend to the center of the Route 20 intersection.
5. Please show all traffic signs; none appear on this plan.
G. pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
7. Previous comment: "rhere 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."
Please provide further grading information showing that water drain away from the "dry
gutter". In addition, please provide more proposed contour labels on the grading plans.
S. VDOT does not recommend the restriction of on -street public parking, particularly Road E,
where only garage parking is available.
9. Clarify the typical section detail for.parking in front of lots 83-86. This does not appear on
the plan.
10. Please show Street Name, Route No., ADT, design speed, and public/private on all plans.
11. Please correct North Arrows.
If you have additional questions please contact Justin Deel at 434-282-8602.
Sincerely,
&A14' ` cut--
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1501 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
June 17, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -2016-00029 Spring Hill Village Final Site Plan
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the final site plan for Spring Hill Village dated 05/09/2016 as submitted by Terra
Concepts and offer the following comments:
1. The proposed entrance on Route 20 does not meet entrance spacing requirements. We
understand that shifting the entrance further south would pose sight distance issues. Due to
this and the redesign necessary to address the below comments, we recommend eliminating
the Route 20 entrance. This would require an SSAR exception request for the secondary
access requirement, which we would support.
2. We envision that the elimination of the Route 20 entrance will warrant improvements to
Avon Street Ext. PIease include left- and right -turn lane warrants for Avon Street Ext. in the
planset. Based on the proposed Route 20 improvements we offer the below general
comments to consider in design of any potential Avon Street Ext. improvements. Note that if
the currently proposed plan including the Route 20 entrance is pursued, comments for those
specific improvements can be provided.
a. New through lanes should match the width of the existing through Ianes
b. Turn lanes should match the width of the through lane
c. Please refer to Appendix F for entrance and turn lane configuration requirements.
3. 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 700
ADT; therefore, these guidelines cannot be used. The minimum design speed should be 25
mph, maximum slope should be no greater than I I %, sight distance lines should be 280 feet,
minimum K -values should be 12 and 26 for crest and sag, respectively.
4. There are multiple concerns with the shown sight distance lines of 225 feet; these issues are
likely to be further compounded once they are increased to 280 feet. Please consider the
following sight distance comments upon resubmission:
a. The proposed street trees shown on the plan appear to conflict with sight lines. Of
particular note are the street trees along the south side of Road A between the
intersection with Road "B" and the pocket park. See Road Design Manual Appendix
B(I)-45 & -46; there should be a 5' window between the shrubs and tree canopy
through which the sight line passes.
b. Sight Iines that are very near to structures will be difficult if not impossible to
maintain. Landscaping, porches, etc. will easily obstruct these sight lines. Note the
intersection of Road A and Road B is extremely close to the potential building
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
located on lot 71. When the sight lines are shown based on the minimum design
speed of 25 mph the sight line will certainly be obstructed by the potential
building(s).
c. There is not enough ground clearance for the left sight line of the intersection of Road
A and Road B.
d. Please include sight distance line profiles in the planset.
e. Sight line easements will be required for all locations that the sight line is not fully
located within proposed right of way.
f. Note that the intersection sight line distance should be measured along the major
roadway, as opposed to the actual line of sight. See Appendix F, page F-34.
g. The left sight line of the Alley intersection with Road A and the right sight line of the
Road C intersection with Road A shows "170' Sight Line 15 mph" (please clarify). In
any event, these site lines should extend to the center of the Route 20 intersection.
5. Please show all traffic signs; none appear on this plan.
6. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
7. Previous comment: "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."
Please provide further grading information showing that water drain away from the "dry
gutter". In addition, please provide more proposed contour labels on the grading plans.
8. VDOT does not recommend the restriction of on -street public parking, particularly Road E,
where only garage parking is available.
9. Clarify the typical section detail for parking in front of lots 83-86. This does not appear on
the plan.
10. Please show Street Name, Route No., ADT, design speed, and public/private on all plans.
11. Please correct North Arrows.
If you have additional questions please contact Justin Deel at 434-282-8602.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Oranpa Road
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper, Vagnia 22701
Commissioner
June 17, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
n
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the final site plan for Spring Hill Village dated 05109/2016 as submitted by Terra
Concepts and offer the following comments:
toThe proposed entrance on Route 20 does not meet entrance spacing requirements. We
understand that shifting the entrance further south would pose sight distance issues. Due to
this and the redesign necessary to address the below comments, we recommend eliminating
the Route 20 entrance. This would require an SSAR exception request for the secondary
access requirement, which we would support.
2. We envision that the elimination of the Route 20 entrance will warrant improvements to
Avon Street Ext. Please include left- and right -turn lane warrants for Avon Street Ext. in the
planset. Based on the proposed Route 20 improvements we offer the below general
comments to consider in design of any potential Avon Street Ext. improvements. Note that if
the currently proposed plan including the Route 20 entrance is pursued, comments for those
specific improvements can be provided.
a. New through lanes should match the width of the existing through lanes
b. Turn lanes should match the width of the through lane
c. Please refer to Appendix F for entrance and turn lane configuration requirements.
3. 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 700
ADT; therefore, these guidelines cannot be used. The minimum design speed should be 25
mph, maximum slope should be no greater than I I%, sight distance lines should be 280 feet,
minimum K -values should be 12 and 26 for crest and sag, respectively.
4. There are multiple concerns with the shown sight distance lines of 225 feet; these issues are
likely to be further compounded once they are increased to 280 feet. Please consider the
following sight distance comments upon resubmission:
a. The proposed street trees shown on the plan appear to conflict with sight lines. Of
particular note are the street trees along the south side of Road A between the
intersection with Road "B" and the pocket park. See Road Design Manual Appendix
B(1 )-45 & 46; there should be a 5' window between the shrubs and tree canopy
through which the sight line gasses_
b. Sight lines that are very near to structures will be difficult if not impossible to
maintain. Landscaping, porches, etc. will easily obstruct these sight lines. Note the
intersection of Road A and Road B is extremely close to the potential building
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Iocated on lot 71. When the sight lines are shown based on the minimum design
speed of 25 mph the sight line will certainly be obstructed by the potential
building(s).
c. There is not enough ground clearance for the left sight line of the intersection of Road
A and Road B.
d. Please include sight distance line profiles in the planset.
e. Sight line easements will be required for all locations that the sight line is not fully
located within proposed right of way.
f. Note that the intersection sight line distance should be measured along the major
roadway, as opposed to the actual line of sight. See Appendix F, page F-34.
g. The left sight line of the Alley intersection with Road A and the right sight line of the
Road C intersection with Road A shows "170' Sight Line 15 mph" (please clarify). In
any event, these site lines should extend to the center of the Route 20 intersection.
5. Please show all traffic signs, none appear on this plan.
6. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
7. Previous comment: "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 41-53." r
Please provide further grading information showing that water drain away from the "dry
gutter". In addition, please provide more proposed contour labels on the grading plans.
8. VDOT does not recommend the restriction of on -street public parking, particularly Road E,
where only garage parking is available.
9. Clarify the typical section detail for parking in front of lots 83-86. This does not appear,,
the plan.
10. Please show Street Name, Route No., ADT, design speed, and publicfprivate on all plans.
11. Please correct North Arrows.
If you have additional questions please contact Justin Deel at 434-282-8602.
Sincerely,
ifs
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Alan Franklin (alan@alanfrankinpe.com)
From: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 16, 2016
Subject: SDP 2016-29 Spring Hill Village — Final Site Development Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Conditions of Initial Approval
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.
Final: No action required.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning district and magisterial district are switched in notes on sheet 2. Please revise.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Include Entrance Corridor (EC) in zoning designation.
Final: Comment not addressed
4. [32.5.2(a)] If any waivers or special exceptions were previously approved with the rezoning
application, list them on the plan with approved conditions, if any.
Final: Comment addressed.
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'
Block A shows a 10' rear setback; COD requires 15'
Final: Setbacks are no longer shown for Block A, which is in phase II. Setbacks do not need to
be shown at this time.
Block D shows 20' rear setback (sheet 2 only); COD requires 15'
Bock E shows a 15' front setback; COD requires 5'
Block F shows a 15' front setback; COD requires 5'
Final: It appears SBL has been changed to 5' but setback note still lists 15'.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Label rear setback for Block C (COD requires 32' setback).
Final: Comment not addressed.
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide acreages of all proposed lots.
Final: Comment not addressed. Applicant plans to show on next revision.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Amend density note to include proposed density in addition to permitted density.
Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(b)] List maximum height of all structures.
Final: Comment addressed.
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 1 improvements. Please clarify. A variation will be needed to change from
phasing approved on the application plan.
Final: Comment not addressed. Submit a variation application to construct block C as part of Phase I.
11. [32.5.2(d)] Slopes on existing conditions sheet should be relabeled as "managed steep slopes."
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [32.5.2(d)] Provide additional contour labels on grading sheets.
Final: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(i)] Show boundaries and label width of proposed alley easements.
Final: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Show locations of any proposed outdoor lighting. Include cut sheets and a photometric
plan with final site plan.
Final: Comment not addressed.
15. [32.5.2(p)] Landscape calculations and schedule provided appear to be for a different project and do
not match the landscape plan sheets. Provide calculations and plant schedule matching the plan
shown. Include signed conservation checklist with landscape plan.
Final: Comment partially addressed. Include conservation checklist on landscape plan.
16. [32.5.2(p)] Label width of landscaping and maintenance easements along northern and southern
property lines.
Final: Comment not addressed. FYI —these will need to be recorded with final plat.
17. [32.5.2(u) and COD] Provide building elevations for proposed structures. List number of stories for
buildings proposed along Avon Street (COD requires 3 stories).
Final: Comment no longer applicable. No buildings are proposed along Avon Street.
18. [32.7.7] Provide more information about the proposed recreation areas on site including proposed
facilities and total square footage. Recreation areas shall be provided as required by section 4.16
Final: Comment not addressed. Please label areas that will be set aside as tot lots and provide a list
of equipment proposed. At minimum, for phase I, you need to provide a tot lot that is at least 2000
sq. ft. and includes the equipment listed in 4.16.2.1 (or approved substitutions). Please note that
with future phases, if the development exceeds 80 units, a second tot lot will be needed.
19. [32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy required for the residential portions of this site is twenty (20)
percent. Provide calculations to show tree canopy requirement will be met for phase 1.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.7.2.2 & 14-409] All streets within the development shall be extended to abutting property lines to
provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands. Extend
streets as close as possible to property lines and provide right of way to property lines for future
extensions.
Final: Comment not addressed.
21. [Comment] There seem to be a number of site distance conflicts at proposed intersections. These will
need to be resolved to the satisfaction of VDOT and engineering staff prior to final approval.
Final: Comment still applies.
22. [Comment] Off-site easements must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval
including easements for offsite utility connections and temporary construction easements if site work
will encroach upon neighboring properties.
Final: Comment still applies.
Final Site Plan Comments
1. [32.5.2] Road C is required to have curbs at the edge of the roadway and gutters shall be required
where necessary to direct stormwater runoff. The County engineer may waive or modify this
requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate swm/BMP facility design per section 4.12.15(8).
Please submit a request and justification for not constructing the curb/gutter along the roadway at this
time.
2. [32.6.2(h)] Include signature panel for signature by each member of the site review committee.
3. [32.6.2(i)] Parking calculations misstate the number of spaces in Block B and incorrectly refer to this
area as Road V. Please revise.
4. [32.7.5.3] Any necessary easements for stormwater management and drainage need to be dedicated
prior to site plan approval.
5. [32.7.4.2] Proof of dedication of public water and sewer facilities for off-site access shall be provided
prior to final site plan approval.
6. [32.7.9] 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.
7. [32.7.9.9(d)] Provide instrument evidencing maintenance of required landscaping and street trees that
are outside of right-of-way. Easements over private lots that are necessary for required landscaping
should be shown on site plan and recorded with final subdivision plat.
8. [COD] Provide proof of recordation of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
containing provisions listed in section 4.1 of COD.
9. [Comment] This site plan cannot not be approved until Engineering, ACSA, VDOT, E911, and ARB staff
complete their reviews and grant their approval. E911, ARB, and Engineering comments (additional
engineering comments forthcoming) are attached. Additional reviewer's comments will be forwarded
upon receipt.
Please contact Rachel Falkenstein in the Planning Division by using rfalkenstein@albemarle.org or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3272 for further information.
A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Rachel Falkenstein, Planning
From:
Matt Wentland, Engineering
Date:
6 June 2016
Subject:
Spring Hill Village (SDP201600029)
The final site plan for Spring Hill Village has been reviewed by Engineering. The following concerns
should be addressed:
1. Before the Final Site Plan can be approved, this project will require approved VSMP and
Road Plans. Road Plans will need to be a separate submittal in order to be reviewed.
Please see the Engineering Review Road Plan Instructions on the County website.
2. A temporary grading easement should be obtained for the installation of Walls H & I. If
the geogrid or structural fill will cross onto the neighboring property, a permanent
easement will be required.
,;DP201600029
-oject Name: .pring Hili Village - Final
ate Completed:=riday; May 20. 2016 Final Site Development Plan
aviewer: Andrew Slack
epartmentOivisionlAgency: Egli
aviews Comments:
ie road names of Walton Way, 'Crescent Lane, 'Hillside Lane', and'Enterprise Drive' are all acceptable road
aures_ Before final approval can be given the approved road names will need to appear on the final plans_
lease contact Andy Slack (aslack@albemarle_org) for any other road name questions_
Review status: Requested Changes I ' I
age: `I County of Albemarle Printed On: F66J16J2016
Keyie uommenrs
iDP201600029
-ojecl blame: pring Hill Village - Final
ate Completed: ' =riday, June 10, 2016 +� Final Site Development Plan
9viewer: ,Margaret Mallszewskl
epartmenVDivisionlAgency: ARB
vviews Comments:
. Clarify the extent of tree removal and tree replacement planned with off-site work along the ECs_ Show how -
i appropriate appearance for the EC will be maintained -
Indicate on the plan the color of the retaining walls.
Revise the Entrance Corridor trees (M) to 3W caliper at planting.
There appear to be discrepancies between the plant quantities listed in the plant list and the plants drawn
the plans for the following plants: C, D, F, H, M. P, Q, R, S, V and W. Please coned as necessary.
Review Status: Pending
age.- 0 County of Albemarle Printed On: Fo6i16120'16
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 orange RDed
Culpeper, Vaginta 22761
Charles A Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
January 27, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the initial site plan for Spring Hill Village dated 12►7115 as submitted by
Terra Concepts and offer the following comments:
1. A sight line easement needs to be provided on the commercial parcel located at the
intersection Roads A and C.
2. A sight line easement needs to be provided on the main park parcel located at the
intersection of Roads A and C. It appears that several trees will obstruct available sight
distance as currently designed.
3. Has Emergency Services approved the 35' radius for the cul-de-sac of Road B?
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.
5. A sight line profile needs to be provided to show the impact of the retaining walls on the
available sight distance at the intersection of Roads B and C.
6. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
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.
8. The road profiles should show the station and elevation of each intersecting roadway.
9. The K -values for crest and sag curves do not meet the minimum K -values for a design
speed of 25 mph.
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.
I I. It appears that standard CD -l's are required at approximately stations 10+30, 11+40, and
16+50 of Road B.
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.
13. Storm structure B2 does not appear to be located at the low point based on contours
provided.
14. Spot elevations should be provided along the curb and centerline of Avon Street
Extended at the intersection with Road A to better define where surface runoff will flow
to.
15. 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.
16. Can the valves to the fire hydrant assemblies be located behind the curb or in the planting
strip?
17. Hydraulic calculations and storm sewer profiles need to be provided for review.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422-9782.
Sincerely,
Agft-
Mno
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
J y
SfA�GSL�A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Memorandum
To: Alan Franklin (alan@alanfrankinpe.com)
From: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: January 19, 2016
Subject: SDP 2015-59 Spring Hill Village — Initial Site Development Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
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.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning district and magisterial district are switched in notes on sheet 2. Please revise.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Include Entrance Corridor (EC) in zoning designation.
4. [32.5.2(a)] If any waivers or special exceptions were previously approved with the rezoning
application, list them on the plan with approved conditions, if any.
[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'
* Block A shows a 10' rear setback; COD requires 15'
Block D shows 20' rear setback (sheet 2 only); COD requires 15'
• Bock E shows a 15' front setback; COD requires 5'
Block F shows a 15' front setback; COD requires 5'
6. [32.5.2(a)] Label rear setback for Block C (COD requires 32' setback).
7. [32.5.2(b)] Provide acreages of all proposed lots.
8. [32.5.2(b)] Amend density note to include proposed density in addition to permitted density.
9. [32.5.2(b)] List maximum height of all structures.
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 1 improvements. Please clarify. A variation may be needed to change from
phasing approved on the application plan.
'"11. [32.5.2(4)] Slopes on existing conditions sheet should be relabeled as "managed steep slopes."
J12. [32.5.2(d)] Provide additional contour labels on grading sheets.
[32.5.2(i)] Show boundaries and label width of proposed alley easements.
14. [32.5.2(n)] Show locations of any proposed outdoor lighting. Include cut sheets and a photometric
plan with final site plan.
15. [32.5.2(p)] Landscape calculations and schedule provided appear to be for a different project and do
not match the-.landscape_plan sheets. Provide calculations an&plantschedule matching the plan
show k�Include signed conservation checklist with landscape plan.
�96[32.5.2(p)] Label width of landscaping and maintenance easements along northern and southern
property lines.
J;jJ32.5.2(u) and COD] Provide building elevations for proposed structures. List number of stories for
buildings pro pposed long Avo Street (COD requires stories).
t,Jo AV
1 . [32.7.7] Provide more information about the proposed recreation areas on site including proposed
facilities and total square footage. Recreation areas shall be provided as required by section 4.16
vn, [32.7.9.8] The minimum tree canopy required for the residential portions of this site is twenty (20)
percent. Provide calculations to show tree canopy requirement will be met for phase 1.
(. 20.�rovicle
32.7.2.2 & 14-409] All streets within the development shall be extended to abutting property lines to
`�,_vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands. Extend
streets as close as po ble to prgperty lines and provide right f way to property lines for future
extensions. r' W 0 ►� � � O c, {' V� —
21. [Comment] There seem to be a number of site distance conflicts at proposed intersections. These will
need to be resolved to the satisfaction of VDOT and engineering staff prior to final approval.
22. [Comment] Off-site easements must be approved and recorded prior to final site plan approval
including easements for offsite utility connections and temporary construction easements if site work
will encroach upon neighboring properties.
Please contact Rachel Falkenstein in the Planning Division by using rfalkenstein@albemarle.org or 434-296-
5°32 ext. 3272 for iurther information.
Kevie comments
jDP2015500059
•oject Name: pring Hill Village - Initial
ate Completed: ' Nednesday; January 13.20"1& Site Plan
eviewer. Matthew Wentland
epartmentlaivislonlAgency: Engineering
views Comments:
efore the Final Site Plan can be approved, this project will require approved VSMP and Road Plans
ReAew Status: No Objection I'
age: i County of Albemarle Printed On: 6 -vi 2016
•oject Dame:
ate Completed:
Keview uomments
iDP201500059
.pring Hill Village - Initial
, Monday, December 14. 2015
Yviewer: Andrew Slack
epartment/Division/Agency: f Egli
Site Plan
aviews Comments::
ie applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) proposed road name far the roads shown on the
ans before final approval is given.
Review Status: Requested Changes 1-1
age: [I County of Albemarle Printed On: [0 i 6)2016-
Rachel Falkenstein
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:06 PM
To: Rachel Falkenstein
Subject: ARB action on Spring Hill Village
b. ARB -2015-148: Spring Hill Village Initial Site Plan - Blocks C — G (TM/Parcel 09000000002800)
Proposal: To establish Blocks C through G of a mixed-use development, including attached and detached dwelling units.
Location: 1776 Scottsville Road, on the west side of Rt. 20, and east of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742), between Arden
Drive and Stony Creek Drive
Regarding the initial site plan design:
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved that the ARB forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the Agent for the Site
Review Committee, as follows:
• 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.
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.
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."
4. Revise the landscape plan to key the trees on the plan to the plant schedule.
5. Revise the spacing of large shade trees along the ECs to 35' on center.
6. Intersperse ornamental trees among the large shade trees that are proposed along the ECs.
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.
8. Clarify the extent of tree removal and tree replacement planned with off-site work along the ECs.
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.
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.
11. Adjust the locations of trees south of lots 42-53 to remain outside of the sewer easement.
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."
13. Provide material and color samples for the retaining walls. Indicate material and color on the site plan.
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.
15. Clarify phasing on the plan, including related landscape development.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
1. Note for future submittals that the Block A building will need to address EC Guidelines requirements for scale,
proportion, massing, detailing, lack of blankness, etc. A "back of building" appearance will not be appropriate
for elevations visible from Rt. 20.
2. The ARB is supportive of mixed uses/commercial uses along the Entrance Corridor
Regarding recommended conditions of initial plan approval: A Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to
final site pian approval.
1. Remove the footprints of future phase buildings from the plan.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Clarify phasing on the plan, including related landscape development.
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
None.
Mr. Missel seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.
Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
Keview uomments
SDP201500059
•oject Name: Ong Hill Village - Initial
ate Completed: Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Site Plan
aviewer. Jay Schlothauer
epartmenVDivision/Agency: Inspections
aviews Comments:
aced on plans dated December 7, 2015.
rovide one, van -accessible, barrier -free parking space, with associated striped access aisle and curb cut, for
,cess to the gazebo. This space should be the eastem-most parking space on the north side of Road "C"
Review Status: Requested Changes j
age: ',i 1 County W Albemarle Printed W FO -Y1912016
Keyiew uomments
jDP201500059
Mect Name: pring Hill Village - Initial
ate Completed: Saturday, Der -ember 19; 2015 Site Plan
_._
pvievwrer: Robbie Gilmer
epartment/DivisionlAgency: Fire Rescue
aviews Comments:
used an plans dated 1217!15.
Fire Flow test required before final approval_
Review status: See Recommendations I - f
016
,age: __ Countl of Albemarle Printed On: , 0'4'19!2
1 r'
Service Authbri
TO: Rachel Falkenstein
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, P.E., Civil Engineer
DATE: January 19, 2016
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201500059: Spring Hill Village — Initial Site Plan
The below checked items apply to this site.
✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for:
✓ A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
✓ 2. Al2 inch waterline is located approximately 25' distant.
3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is
Gpm + at 20 psi residual.
✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 2,350' ro osed connection
distant.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed.
✓ 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.
✓ 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our review and approval prior to
granting final site plan approval.
11. Final site plan may/may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections.
13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer.
✓ Comments:
A portion of the proposed sanitary sewer infrastructure may qualify for off-site
development credits. If the applicant wishes to pursue off-site development credits,
please contact Alexander Morrison, PE, at amordson serviceauthorit .or , for more
information on the process.
The applicant shall coordinate with Avinity Estates for the proposed sewer connection
(the proposed connection point will be constructed under the Avinity Estates site plan).
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22941 • Tel (434) 977-4511 - Fax (434) 979-0698
www.serviceauthority.org
ServiceAuth6rity
At the final site plan stage that applicant shall submit 3 copies of the utility plan, along with
water and sewer data sheets, to the ACSA, Attn: Michael Vieira, PE, for construction
review and approval.
During the construction review process the ACSA will review future sewer easement on
portions of your property to facilitate a sewer extension to serve the proposed grinder
pumps at Avon Park Il.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979-0698
www.serviceauthodty.org
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Onrigs Rad
Charles & Kilpatrick, P.E. LblpBplr,lRlginls 22701
COMMISStmer
January 27, 2016
Ms. Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP -2015-00059 Spring Hill Village Initial Site Plan
Dear Ms. Falkenstein,
We have reviewed the initial site plan for Spring Hill Village dated 12/7/15 as submitted by
Terra Concepts and offer the following comments:
1. A sight line easement needs to be provided on the commercial parcel located at the
intersection Roads A and C.
2. A sight line easement needs to be provided on the main park parcel located at the
intersection of Roads A and C. It appears that several trees will obstruct available sight
distance as currently designed.
3. Has Emergency Services approved the 35' radius for the cul-de-sac of Road B?
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.
5. A sight line profile needs to be provided to show the impact of the retaining walls on the
available sight distance at the intersection of Roads B and C.
6. Pavement design calculations need to be provided for review.
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.
8. The road profiles should show the station and elevation of each intersecting roadway.
9. The K -values for crest and sag curves do not meet the minimum K -values for a design
speed of 25 mph.
10. It appears that standard CD -i's are required at approximately stations 10+50, 10+60,
16+80, and 18+60 of Road A.
I 1. it appears that standard CD -1's are required at approximately stations 10+30, 11+40, and
16+50 of Road B.
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.
13. Storm structure B2 does not appear to be located at the low point based on contours
provided.
14. Spot elevations should be provided along the curb and centerline of Avon Street
Extended at the intersection with Road A to better define where surface runoff will flow
to.
15. 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.
16. Can the valves to the fire hydrant assemblies be located behind the curb or in the planting
strip?
17. Hydraulic calculations and storm sewer profiles need to be provided for review.
If you need additional information concerning this prosect, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422-9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
CON,:U_`.A
DEPARTaBrr•oF TRANSPORTATioN
1m armpe fled
Charles A. Kilpabick f.e. OAWp u.Vwa UM
Commlealoner
June 9,1014
Ms. Claudette•Grant
Senior Planner
County of Allmmarle
Department of Community Development
401 Mch ire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the NMD Rezoning Application Plan for the�proposed Spring Hill Village
developunat dated 10/21:113 with revisions dated 1j -2V14, 3131-114, and 5119/14.as submitted by Terra
Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. The road design appears to have been based on a design speed of 20 mph. 'Per Appendix B(1) of
the Road Design Manual, the minimum design speed for these.roads should be 25 mph based on
an project ADT of 2,000 vehicles or leas. Most notably, tl& vill impact the available sight.
distance shown on the plan.
2..The proposed street tees shown on the plan appear to conflict with sight lines.
3. Buildings on Lots 70 and 71 will be an bbstruadon. to the sight line at the intersection of Road
"B" and Road `°A".
4. Standard CG -12 crossings will need to be provided at each intersection including.the intersections
with Road "A" at RoutcZ and Avon Ext.
5. A � rp*uaKeuznua spich* exceptiam will be ne~assery he N011odna bemwm Rw d.r.
tltc cntr"" for I ariwam Cnnstrucuop and fax the corner 10; :he diew
,Ddwcxm Ru ad "t:"" and Route 20.
6. Tho pavemem design shown on the street typical sections will need to be verified through the
road plan review process.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact meat
(434)589-5871.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMEW OF TRANSPORTATKM
taxi Orerge Rued
Charles A. Kilpatrick, RE
ComRdedoner
April 29, 2014
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albermarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZMA-2013-00017 Spring Hill Village
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the rezoning application plan for Spring Hill Village dated 10/21/13 with revisions
dated 1121114 and 3131/14 as submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1. A corner clearance exception to the access management regulations will be required for the
connection to Route 20.
2. Sweet intersections should be perpendicular to the connecting road. More specifically, the
omnterline for Road "C" should be perpendicular to the cen mUne of Road Won both sides of
Road "A". In addition, the connections at this intersection obould line up or should be offset from
each other a minimum of 200 feet. The most likely design would require the parking area
adjacent to lots 42-53 to be shifted to the west so that the connections could be aligned.
3. Additional detail is needed for landscaping at the intersection of Roads "A" and "C" to ensure
the sight distance is maintained. This requirement could be addressed at the site plan stage, but
may result in the elimination of some of the landscaping.
4. Sight lines will need to be shown at each intersection to entire there is adequate sight distance
available. It appears that a sight easement may be necessary across lot 70. This can be addressed
at the site plan stage.
5. Street trees need to be located a minimum of 30 feet from the end of radius at each intersection.
6. Standard CG -12 curb will be required at each road crossing of the sidewalks. Specific design and
location of the sidewalks can be addressed during site/road plan review.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel fi= to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy stin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
,00MMONW- EALTH of V1R . 1N1A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1001 orange Road
Culpeper, Vk&la 22701.3819
Gregory A. Whirley
C ommiseloner of Highmys
November 22, 2013
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ZKU013-00017 Spring Hili Village
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the Rezoning Application Plan for Spring Hill Village dated 10-21-13 as
submitted by Terra Concepts, P.C. and offer the following comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The internals roads for this project will be privately owned and maintained.
The sight lines and available sight distance for each of the entrances should be shown on
the plan.
Each entrance will need to comply with Access Management spacing regulations. It
appears that an AM -2 spacing exception will be required for the entrance onto Route 20.
Each entrance will need to comply with entrance design ;requirements as identified in
Appendix F of the Road Design Manual. This can be confirmed during the site plan
review process.
If you need additional concerning this project, please feel free to contact m
Sincerely,
A�k
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VlrglnisDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING