HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900059 Review Comments Easement Plat 2019-07-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Easement Plat Review
Project title:
Pantops Corner —Easement Plat
Plan preparer:
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902 f iustin(a,shimp-enizineering com]
Owner or Rep:
Pantops Corner LC, 12704 Crimson Court, Suite 101; Henrico,VA 23233-7657
Plan received date:
16 Apr 2019
(Rev. 1)
24 Jun 2019
Date of comments:
28 May 2019
(Rev. 1)
6 Jul 2019
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SUB201900059 — Easement Plat
Proposed plat title is: Right -of -Way Dedication and Easement Plat, 0.07 Acre, a portion of T.M. 78-5A and
0.01 Acre, a portion of T.M. 78-5B Hereby Dedicated to Public Use and New Variable Width Private Road
Access Easement on Tax Map 78 Parcels 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E and 58G1, New Variable width ACSA Utility
Easement on Tax Map 78 Parcels 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E and 58G1, New 20' Shared Private Drainage Easement
on Tax Map 78 Parcels 5A, 5B, 5E and 58G1, also, New Variable Width Shared Private Drainage
Easement, New 30' Shared Private Drainage Easement and New 12' SWMAccess Easement on Tax Map
Parcel 58G1 Located on U.S. Route 250 (Richmond Road) & State Route 20 (Stony Point Road) at
Pantops. Please revise 545-character plat title to be concise, since title appears in correspondence, review
comments, and recorded documentls; for example: Dedication of public right-of-way, private road access,
ACSA utility, shared private drainage, public drainage, and stormwater management facility and access
easements for Pantops Corner (or similar), and transfer additional specific information to plat Notes. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. Comment requested less, not more. Title, revised with this submittal, has lengthened.
No other document (deed, for example) can reasonably reference a plat titled: Right -of -Way Dedication,
0.07 Acre, a portion of T.M. 78-5A and 0.01 Acre, a portion of T.M. 78-5B Hereby Dedicated to the
Commonwealth of Virginia for Public Use and Easement Plat Showing New Variable Width Private Street
Easement on Tax Map 78 Parcels 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E and 58G1, New Variable width ACSA Utility Easement
on Tax Map 78 Parcels 5A, 5B, 5C, 5E and 58G1, New 20' Shared Private Drainage Easement on Tax
Map 78 Parcels 5A, 5B, 5E and 58G1, New 6' x 11 ' Sign Easements on Tax Map 78 Parcels 5B and 5E,
New Sight Distance Easement on Tax Map 78 Parcel 5C Also, New Variable Width Shared Private
Drainage Easement, New 30' Public Drainage Easement, New Public SWM Easement and New 12' SWM
Access Easement on Tax Map 78 Parcel 58G1 Located on U.S. Route 250 (Richmond Road) & State Route
20 (Stony Point Road) at Pantops —without risk of error. Please provide a more reasonable plat title; for
example: Various Utility, Street, Drainage and SWM Facility -Access Easements; Right -of -Way Dedication
at Pantops Corner, or initial suggestion, above. Plat will likely not be approved in current form with 678-
character title. Note: please notify Engineering if other review comments are at odds —Engineering will
coordinate to remedy any conflicting request concerning plat title.
Applicant response: `The title of the plat has been updated to reflect the most recent easement changes and
is correct. Please note that questioning the titles of plats is outside the scope of review for County
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
Engineering and that we find it unprofessional for County Engineering to tell a highly experienced licensed
surveyor how to title their legal documents.'
Several points:
• Reviewer has utmost regard for Brian and Roger Ray, dating to when we first met. Brian Ray
offered guidance when I first joined Engineering. They are exceptional individuals, by character
and temperament, professional by definition. Ray plats are not just accurate, they are instructive.
• Engineering helps prepare legal documents using County Attorney templates. We have done this
on occasion for Shimp Engineering (SE). We will do it for this project. This project requires a
Deed of Dedication that references: plat title, date, date last revised, plat preparer.
• Please revisit response: Is this an accurate reflection of SE's view of level of service provided by
Engineering, or reviewer? Engineering is committed to applicants, and must review plans /plats
using checklists, ordinance, ACDSM, VAC, DEQ guidance, etc. At times, we accept request/s to
review submittals out of order, .PDFs, for example, to speed approval, and do not consider the
work we do in opposition to design, but supportive of design that meets requirements.
• Apart from re -typing plat title, entirety of initial comment above reads: `Please revise 545-
character plat title to be concise, since title appears in correspondence, review comments, and
recorded document/s; for example: Dedication of public right-of-way, private road access, ACSA
utility, shared private drainage, public drainage, and stormwater management facility and access
easements for Pantops Corner (or similar), and transfer additional specific information to plat
Notes.' That's the comment. Now, SE response.
• Is review comment unprofessional? Does it challenge surveyor experience or expertise? —
accuracy of plat?
• Perhaps there are additional underlying issues. Feedback can be helpful. To that end:
Engineering requests a meeting. At the meeting, let us explore how or if SE can commit to a less personal
stance, to an understanding that preserves rather than frays working ties. If it helps to know, there are times
Planning, Engineering, Zoning, etc. work in close support of one another. We ask questions, offer advice,
join to advance reviews. Engineering would not be able to take this plat title to county attorneys. CAO
would ask, what? —and likely request a brief still -accurate title. Tables /labels may list parcel and area
(Ac.) references listed in plat title. This is what CAO expects of us. Engineering does not mean to
antagonize ever. If Brian or Roger Ray view this comment wide of the mark, that there is no possible
alternative title that works, I will apologize to each and ask again if plat title can be shortened. It will be
good to see them. I and Engineering review staff support every design firm, every project. Now may be a
good time to meet; perhaps we can find a way to accomplish more.
Sec. 14-302 Contents of preliminary plat.
A preliminary plat shall contain the following information:
A. A preliminary plat shall contain the following information, which must be included in
order for a preliminary plat to be deemed complete under section 14-218:
1. Name of subdivision. The title under which the subdivision is proposed to be
recorded. The title shall not duplicate or be a homonym of an existing or reserved subdivision name within
the county, the City of Charlottesville, or the Town of Scottsville, except if the subdivision is an extension
of an existing subdivision.
2. Please ensure plat title makes reference to SWM facility, as well as SWM access. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Please ensure plat title makes reference to public drainage, as well as private drainage. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn. Ref. item 1., above.
4. Please revise `New 30' Shared Private Drainage Easement' located downstream of SWM Easement to read
up blic, rather than private. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Revise easement width just upstream of the SWM easement to Min. 44' for 2' DIA pipe installed —20'
below final grade. Ref. ACDSM, pg. 15. image bele [ image removed w/ Rev. 1 ] (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
6. Related to item 5: Ensure at least 17' drainage easement width between CL of installed storm pipe, and
State Rt. 20 Variable width R/W to NW, at point drainage easement Min. width =44'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
40' width provided to accommodate 18' depth of pipe.
7. For irons found that may be impacted by grading, include Note requiring any monument used to establish
easement or centerline is to be replaced if damaged (with offset, if necessary, to avoid placing in
pavement). Surveyor may elect to replace monuments in same location, once construction is complete.
Though state law requires monuments be restored, given that several Pantops Comer Way (private road)
centerline monuments were set in 2018 and must be removed to construct road bed and pavement, and that
several CL monuments serve as parcel boundaries, a plat note is warranted. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Applicant response: `Monuments were required to be set at the time the property lines were created.
Monuments are to be replaced by a surveyor if any are destroyed. However, this is a construction issue not
an Easement Plat requirement.' Engineering accepts this response.
S. Provide drainage easement on TMP 78-513, from at least Str. Al1B to Al 1, since Pantops Corner Way
runoff is collected on this parcel. Since 78-513 drainage elements are part of the road drainage system, and
since road -related drainage /access easements must be recorded for one or more applications to proceed to
approval (WPO201800088, SUB01900024), recommend show all drainage easements on TMP 78-513, i.e.,
from Str. A110 to A11. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Please confirm intent to not provide
recommended easement on TMP78-513. If so please confirm understanding that platting requirements for
recommended drainage easement will require plat as condition of development approval for TMP 78-513.
9. Show owner name and TMP bk.-pg. information for all parcels adjacent to parcels granting easements with
this plat, similar to owner information provided for TMP 78-6. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Label shared private easement width (dimension) between easement CL and easement limit to north of CL,
just prior to SWM Easement. Assume width =10' at this point. See item 6., however, which may require
revised width at this point (z17'). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `A 10' dimension has been
added to the New Variable Width Shared Private Drainage Easement adjacent to the new Public SWM
Easement. Please note that the CL dimensions shown do not necessarily represent storm pipe location,
rather it is drawn to easily identify the easement boundary per typical surveying and platting standards.
These easements match the VSMP & Road plan, which show that the pipes are in compliance with county
requirements.' No aspect of plat review confirms pipe design, or VSMP or Road plans, are in compliance
with county requirements. Pipe design, VSMP and Road plan reviews are independent of plat review.
11. Revise plat notes 3 and 7 to delete reference to recorded retaining wall construction /maintenance easement
and access easement agreements since: (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `Plats are
required to show all known easements on the subject property. These are known easements, recorded in the
Albemarle courthouse in DB5147 PG 221, 228 & 229, therefore they will be shown. We would like to
remind County Engineering that their review is for engineering items on this easement plat only. Please
leave legal questions, such as debating whether a recorded item is an easement, to the County Attorney,
who is the qualified professional in this matter. The existing easement will remain on the plat as it is
required to be shown.' As follow-up: Engineering will elevate legal question of whether easement recorded
at bk.-pg. 5147-221, 228, 229 is an easement, and follow-up with Applicant. For now, comment persists.
a. Recorded document does not meet ordinance definition of an Easement.
b. Please ref. 14-106, Definitions:
Easement. The term "easement" means a reservation or grant by a property owner of the use of
land for a specific purpose or purposes, other than a license revocable by the unilateral act of the grantor.
Easement plat. The term "easement plat" means the schematic representation of an easement
required by, and subject to review and approval by the county under this chapter, which includes a
statement of the specific purpose for which the easement is established.
c. Graphic recorded at bk.-g. 4553-484-485 is not a plat.
d. Graphic image was neither reviewed nor approved by Albemarle County as a plat.
e. Recorded graphic does not reflect most recent approved initial site plan, or proposed retaining wall
design.
12. Related to item 11, submit retaining wall easement plat for construction /maintenance. Use standard
Easement plat application. Applicant is encouraged to discontinue the practice of recording as `Easements'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
documents that are not. Easements include plats as schematic representation of an easement. Albemarle is
uncertain what informs decision to record and rely upon a document that incorporates the term `Easement,'
a defined term with specific legal meaning, while providing graphic representation that is not a plat, is not
sealed, is not signed, is not reviewed or approved as a plat, is illegible, and is obsolete relative to revised
final site plan retaining wall location /design. If Applicant disagrees and considers document recorded at
bk.-pg. 4553-473 to be an easement, please alert us. We will coordinate with County Attorney's Office.
To reiterate, furnish retaining wall easement plats for proposed retaining walls between TMP 78-5E and
78-5C; TMP 78-5A and 78-6; and TMP 78-58G1 and 78-6. Note: SDP201400031 (basis of image attached
to recorded document at bk.-pg. 4553-473) is a design far removed from later approved initial site plan for
this site. Note major differences, below. SDP201400031 is obsolete. Provide retaining wall easement plat
based on SDP201800039, Approved 9/25/18. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Regardless
of whether this is a current issue, you have brought up a site plan review item. This is an easement plat, so
while this comment may be appreciated on the site plan (if indeed the County Attorney deemed it an issue),
this should not be applicable to this easement plat.' As follow-up: County Attorney does not review site
plans, CDD staff reviews site plans. Comment will transfer, be brought to site plan review coordinator's
attention. CV will be updated. Comment will append to SDP201800089 and SDP201800078 to be
addressed for final and initial site plan approval, respectively.
SDP201400031, Approved 5/15/14
SDP201800039, Approved 9/25/18
:III: � � � �� �` e,f —.-.—���l�N��•_.
,< - .`war I Pr
� I
I
Document Graphic Attachment (Not a plat), deed bk.-pg. 4553-473
e
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
13. Provide temporary grading easement on TMP 76-6. Please see Approved SDP201800039, sheet 3. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. Applicant res�onseres�onse: `The temporary grading easement on TMP 76-6, as shown on
previously submitted site/road plans for Pantops Corner, was already recorded in DB4553 PG 473-486.
This is not a proposed easement, nor is it onsite so therefore it will not be shown on this plat.' Engineering
asks to discuss this comment when we meet week of 8-Jul to discuss several review comment responses.
14
15
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
V
jt
1 lkl
III
LOIB EPC . CENTE EASEMENT
(YEP[O, CENTEI 6 A[SA3
I ,]' 1vn Inne
m
2.188 Acre FutLrre
Development P d 1
Calculate and list acreage of each proposed easement. If there are multiple easements of a single type, as
for drainage, for example, list on plat the area of each distinct easement area. Recommend include: private
road access, shared private drainage, public drainage, SWM facility, SWM access, ACSA utility, and
temporary construction. Recommend include easement data table. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant
response: `This is not a requirement.' Engineering defers to county attorney's office (CAO), which has
requested this precise information in the past. Approval delay is a possibility. I spoke with Justin Shimp,
earlier today, and explained Engineering works with CAO, which is last stop for review and approval. We
accept CAO advice, and share it with Applicants. We are first line for considering requirements. CAO has
twice presented seminars outlining legal requirements to Planning /Engineering, telling us in effect what
matters, what doesn't. Unless respondent has exact understanding of requirements, review roles, task
management, etc., approval processes are better served by meeting to chart a better path, to redirect.
(Review comments are not inerrant. Comments merit design response if based on requirements. CDD
reviews may not impose extra judicial requirements —if they do, it's a mistake. If CAO does not require
easement areas be tabulated on this plat, CDD will adjust and not request, but for now comment persists.)
Recommend include parenthetical text that reads `(Tie)' beneath C4, L=88.90' to distinguish line segment.
(Rev. 1) Withdrawn, review error. Applicant response: `C4 and L=88.90' are not tie lines. They are part
of the boundary lines of T.M. 78-5C.'
_-I LP'
Ij'nM n POIce1 l �79' TEMPOGAO OFA9TNG EASEMENT ON T N. TB-Ml —
Sheet 1
16. Recommend show arc A3-A2 endpoint, similar to other endpoints. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Recommend provide separate signature lines for Pantops, LC, and Pantops Corner, LC. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Thank you
Please feel free to call if any questions. I look forward to meeting to discuss items 1, 11, 12 ,13, and 14.
Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SUB201900059 Pantops Corner Easement plat 070619rev1