The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB202000013 Correspondence 2020-02-23 Christopher Perez From: Roger Schickedantz <rschick@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 5:57 PM To: Christopher Perez; rneurologicalhope@gmail.com; Richard Randolph; donnapaulaprice@hotmail.com; Rick Randolph Subject: Comments regarding proposed easement design resulting from Spring Hill Village Development Attachments: 20_0223 RSchickedantz SPRING HILL VILLAGE_memo to AlbCty.pdf; SUB201900158 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2019-11-08.pdf; SDP201900068 Plan - Proffer Page. 2019-11-18 (low-res).pdf; WPO201900042 Plan - VSMP 2019-09-30.pdf CAUTION:This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Hi Donna, Rick, and Chris, In preparation for the March 5th site review meeting on Spring Hill Village I promised Chris Perez that I would deliver my comments in advance. Here is a memo with my concerns accompanied by illustrating documents as best I could locate them. I hope that the County is willing to work with me on these issues to come to a mutually acceptable resolution. Many thanks for your attention. Regards, Roger Roger Schickedantz 1858 Scottsville Rd. Charlottesville,VA 22902 1 Roger O. Schickedantz, AIA 1858 Scottsville Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 rschick@gmail.com 434-981-0164 cell February 23, 2020 To: Albemarle County Department of Community Development Attn: Christopher Perez From: Roger Schickedantz, property owner TMP 90-27 Re: Comments regarding Spring Hill Village Development SUB202000013 Preliminary Subdivision Plat IMP_'L pL) I I� l I� �� h! 11iIL4L iImisity AillIE ,A11 '�v. amD +P 1 T � ION OFri7E PESTEM.THECONC-7 P� OPEN W4 , iww5r., Ma.E -vrs Nas na.... a�''a F iN 1►` Al wIWIRE a w rm ,I 1 Y. "" 4 ��-�r tit' suVp\aRT P. \ � Pf ee h'�! 1__ f, ate'__—/r�S� # -AL jo gag@ !Fr! I ,IN,, , ,,,s. JENtY F \ « CTa32. , I - T,.M-2 1 \ D �P I:a�1� !n D 7NAP+ .,_ Am'. �. JIM .JR + r THE STORM SEWER FWD 6TNF OUTFAtI.MY S:. Y Dear Chris, 1: `..ilr'4 I am writing to express some concerns related to the proposed plan to alter the easement in ht front of my property along Route 20 adjacent to the Spring Hill Village development. ••,. /:ti For reference, please find attached a selection of drawings from the VSMP package provided by hA/ the developer to the County. I direct your attention to the relevant portions of the drawings on ( IA ' page 1—excerpted above, as well as the inserts at the right hand side of pdf pages 2—5 (drawing sheets 2, 5, 6, 7). These drawings correspond to the easement fronting 1858 Scottsville Road. My concerns are related to decisions that I believe are a result of State and County direction to the developer. The design reflects this initial guidance as well as the particular solutions that the developer has chosen to make. My intent here is to question various conclusions that resulted from the process. Roger O. Schickedantz,AIA . For background, please know that I greatly value the vegetation currently planted both in the easement and on my property for its benefit as a screen and buffer to traffic along Route 20. This includes some tall deciduous volunteer trees that have grown up over the years to overhang the roadway, and I understand there may be a desire to remove those trees as a matter of right-of-way maintenance. More significant to me is vegetation on or just over the property line including Boxwoods that must be at least 60 years old as well as a line of Photinia that are approximately 25 years old. The density helps to filter air pollutants from the roadway as well as block car lights. The design as proposed in the drawings will destroy a large portion of this entire screen. "The Boxwood and Photinia plants are in many cases right on the property line or very close to it, and I believe the previous owners who planted them did their best to respect the easement line. Their growth over the years has caused branches to reach into the easement. I fear that the proposed changes while undoubtedly removing the trees within the easement will also damage those on the property line due to root disruption. iiiici , r h yp. Y �'' _ , , '1:'--,,i'',„"I',4140:r..,•;,i 7.4,511t1'. .\''.i.':' ' . . : 'l' ';'''. ' ' ::i::'''4 li i\ - t, i,itrZ', l'i", •• .,4.; ,-:/:-`, ' - ' , - :.4' , 4,,,,,.-/. f) 4 . ` + r. sF `.f A . , i,3 ,= `fir ,;✓ • t G jf - ,'y y3+n Y5 ' 1 +q.�V• �, y !;lIi'/I, r 1 ' f, `. ,fir ' : 71ks 8 _,..: YY z !'y r4 „h 1 NI ''.'i r' ' w. / • , 7.., �„4• xX► /� / '.. ^� . \• u The Photinia trees are clearly within the property line on the north side of the stone stair, yet regrading of this area will create difficulties for maintenance and will likely disturb the roots. p. 2 of 7 Roger O. Schickedantz, AIA ,),;: ''‘I'tie*,:ti,1::,i:,..7411:......:‘4:1r151.4..:. :41:-.411111:;-'...17.'":::,:41:::::'171:: ::''' s ? ` - `p k-j � dii , :,..'..1- I. 7 At • Ili_ z ,S I .y.fT ; t x • ss. s:J � [3 ts , , • .y 1 f!'. .., .,,„ ,k , 1 h l 04 ` ti ' ' ." y"Z. `'X1 • - . -� ' �1, `4 .kit +, .• is, ,,i • -"'Y" - i Y. • .jq4. 4T+ F ~ w The stake with the white flag indicates the line of division between the property and the easement. The evergreen Photinia plants are planted on the property line but reach over it into the easement. p. 3 of 7 Roger O. Schickedantz,AIA _ .. f. _.. �! ,, ; • r fizr ''' . • ,.:-' ,. tf, hiti,W,; 1// SI ' '. - „ / p �hti 1 u,; ,sue.. ` r . •.. I `y r , .. I / oti f View of the easement vegetation from Rte. 20 s i --4— t4P a p1 Transportation Management be J g ,� q L pg I find it disconcerting to discover that, de bite Vito Cetta's comments to me to the contrary,the regrading is being proposed to facilita - construction of a northbound turn lane into Spring Hill Village. Mr. Cetta, the previous de -loper, occasionally kept me apprised of his discussions with VDOT, and in our last disc _ • ..a ematter said that VDOT was backing off its original 4\,\ recomme ..ti.n fort due to the reduction in commerci I use compared to t4ie �,r� amount that had been proposed in a prior site plan). Apparently VDOT reversed its decision.S - - -- _ ve gi In my opinion as a 23-year resident,there is very little need for a northbound turn lane from Rte. 20.The vast majority of drivers to the development will be approaching from 1-64 or Charlottesville on Rte. 20 or Avon St. For the few coming from the south, the entrance off of \?\?(It' Avon St. should be sufficient to provide equivalent access. As a precedent, please refer to Stone Creek Village, the development at the corner of Rte. 20 and Mill Creek Drive. The entrance to that development from southbound Rte 20 at Stone Creek Lane has no northbound turn lane. Access from the south and from Avon St. is via Mill Creek Dr. Those access points are directly comparable to the dual access points proposed for Spring Hill Village. p. 4 of 7 Roger O. Schickedantz, AIA N11ti 7.1eI presume that the extent of proposed easement regrading is a specific result of the decision to relocate the southbound lane of Rte. 20 slightly to the west to allow for the turn lane, and a desire to improve visibility from the intersection of my driveway to Rte. 20 following the relocation. As indicated in the site plan,the relocation of the pavement itself has a fairly minor impact on the easement. It is the regrading proposed by the developer that has a more significant impact. As proposed, the new southbound lane will be approaching my driveway at a more acute angle, ir and thus negatively affect visibility. That is not the real problem, however. The obstacle to w/ rt �d 4/visibility is the hump in the roadway that peaks at my driveway. Fpr VDOT to fix that more ! V�T serious problem they would need to reg_rade Rte,r ''Changes to the elevation of the easement bank will not address that issue. Stormwater Management l It appears that regrading of the easement may be proposed to some extent for reasons of stormwater flow, although it is not clear from the drawings why this is necessary. Current flow is only restricted by lack of connectivity between the existing roadside ditches. If the below- grade pipes under the driveways were maintained correctly the drainage would be adequate. Alternative Mobility The VSMP drawings indicate that a new sidewalk along Route 20 in front of Spring Hill Village will be within the easement parallel and directly adjacent to the property line. As shown on the drawings, it will end at approximately the spot where the following photo is taken. It is notable that the elevation at this point is approximately 8—10 feet above the elevation of the roadway. i - .. i4 �, 0 ` View looking north from along the Spring Hill Village frontage from the southern property line p. 5 of 7 Roger O. Schickedantz, AIA While it is a desirable goal to provide sidewalks in the growth area, the ability to have a fully connected system is years away and fraught with obstacles at many places along Rte. 20. Most particularly in this case there is a direct conflict between future continuation of the_si ewalk and access to the roadway provided by the stone stair that I use to reach mymailbox. As noted in Proffer#4,the developer is required to replace this stair should it be removed. The applicable portion of Proffer#4 reads: "At its sole expense, the Owner shall make the needed improvements, if any are required, to the portion of the lot immediately adjacent to the site south on Route 20. Should these improvements require a retaining wall and/or a reworking of stairs, these improvements shall be reviewed by the County Architectural Review Board, since Route 20(is)in an Entrance Corridor road." By the way, on- of the drawings in the developer's submittals addresses a replacement). '' f 5 1-^15` beleekee . �' 4, In order to conform with the new gradi t e stair wo6d have to b moved to the west. No matter what distance the stair is moved it will block the path of the future sidewalk. One way to CPS .---- avoid this conflict is to build the sidewalk at street level. I am not recommending this solution 3.1 because it would place the sidewalk in closer proximity to traffic. Another solution is to turn the 6• stair so it runs parallel to the roadway within the easement. This will only solve the sidewalk t conflict if the bank remains approximately in its current location. rs' /(� pug 1 It is not clear if the resulting grading shown for the easement would provide an acceptable slope for a future sidewalk. I suspect that it will be too steep for proper use. Landscape Preservation and Maintenance i/ The proposed regrading, as noted above, has other ramifications. The drawings indicate that ,(SS�� the bank will be cut back for the length of the easement and notes show that it will be replanted 51,E a with gra How i� s the developer nronosing that the grass be maintained? The slope, especially at the northern end, will be too steep for me to mow and is a huge imposition for a "benefit" that I did not request. While the current ground cover may not be aesthetically pleasing to 1.7- everyone it is self-maintaining. Secondly, the effort to accomplish the regrading to the extent shown, cannot be done without damaging the vegetation on the property line. desr- Accordingly if the bank must be moved at all, I think it is entirely appropriate that a retaining s'u - wall be created in order to allow the grade at the top of the easement to remain at its current J5 >'L elevation. This -. ntuality was envisioned in the language of Proffer#4 which suggests that retaining wall impbe required. Also please be aware that when the Planning Commission reviewed the development proposal on October 8, 2014, some Commissioners suggested that natural stone would be appropriate for the entrance corridor and that the ARB "review with attention" the material and design. Resolution While I completely understand that the easement is under the jurisdiction of VDOT, and that I have no legal standing to challenge their decisions, I do feel that they are taking an extreme position and are not considering all the factors. Decisions VDOT has made are cascading through the approvals process to affect other design disciplines. I ask that the County staff help to resolve these differences, bringing all the parties together to come up with an acceptable StR C solution. _ —' 494 o �`7 QV�'r -�'� u' p. 6 of 7 St t fps ))46 / Roger O. Schickedantz, AIA 44t-i-5 I S $In closing, I find the County review process to be less than transparent. The plan drawings posted for M the •2020 Site Plan Review are plat drawings only,and do not addrec_c the actual design for the development. Fortunately I was able to locate 2019 site plan drawings on +.e-- the my website on my o n. The only reason I even thought to look for them was because , e work was underway in Ja ary 2020.There was no notification when these drawings were ly( .r posted, and it is only through y investigation that I happened to come across them. I do not w/ L S�j/ understand why there was no n tification or citizen inp t prior to the start of grading work on �J�^ ' _1/4161/5 the Spring Hill Village site. ,nAl S r Vows a.� Lf �, . sLo}�� I�` o 2t44/ Fortunately no work has yet been done to clear the easement, although I have been anticipating (111"-4 it for the last month. I have not been notified about plans for this work and have no idea how long I will be affected by the construction. Ifound a statement in the 11-8-19 comments from i rou to Emily Cox(attached)that gives me some hope. Comment 4 reads: "Prior to road plan approval provide signed agreements form all the effected offsite property owners granting permission for the variable width temporary grading and construction easement, variable width ACSA utility easement, variable width drainage easement, and any improvements outside the public right-of-way." Although not provided notification of this comment that applies directly to me, I take it that there remains some opportunity to address concerns before it is too late. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to further discussion. r' i ( -- -,'-' 1'; —0__ _n___-__J 7 �nt!eaN+ sr - LIFE:., TE � 0. a s y 1 1.n.a..5 .- 264 1 __ I I TMP 90-27 1 s ,., — d ..�Mater .. .k. — I � LO 1A I or w �i �:uxasx�x w-i+.rx+axs- � R `` R ! I�! t IN - . II 1 51 D. 629 P.s e+PLAT I itma 1 D8 5�O P.1EO?LAT r � hiai wJ�NIRE i 1 1 �. .3 PPORT 0 �� 1 I ^' _ VI z I . ` rs p-I-r---ivta i.7 \ si wMIIRE ar w R rth??e.m. r :-:.:.•., 1 5UPP. oa221 Pros + 1 . ` ait _ •. ...._.,._--«» _ - ‘ - ,III ►- " .. _ '''' -'- .-.._ 4If__ t -----�_ Wit .....m . IF --N mAiLg& Nr"..."1111111111W,2 — - J, -- __�N r - . . _ �. _ ��. •r. ,�. ., GROIN \ ` i I TERRY LEE AND I Phi I '9O 21= 4.90 21 E q. D.B 2616P.26 V WIL.T'0 /WDEV .I `'-• I DD 37N7 P 332_ IA I l \� p. 7 of 7