HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300026 Approval - County 2013-04-23of aL$
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4506
Phone (434) 296 =5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
July 29, 2013
Scott Collins
200 Garrett St, Suite K.
Charlottesville VA.2902
RE: SDP201300026 Lochlyn Hill Phase IB — Initial Site Development Plan
Dear Mr. Collins:
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative approval to the above referenced site
plan.
This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this letter
as provided in section 32.4.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter diligently
pursues approval of the final site plan.
An Erosion and Sediment Control Permit may be issued after the following approvals are received:
1. Approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code
of the County of Albemarle.
2. Approval of a Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code.
3. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. Approval of a mitigation plan for the disturbance of Water Protection Ordinance buffers.
5. Submittal of a tree conservation checklist.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are
received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $1,500.
3. Submittal of plans directly to each of the agencies /departments listed below necessary to satisfy the
conditions of approval.
The final site plan will not be approved until the following conditions are met:
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until
tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained:
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A landscape plan meeting the requirements of section 32.7.9 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. Side yard setbacks for R4 zoning are 15'; however, the applicant aims to reduce
the setback to 10' as depicted on the initial site plan. Thus the applicant will need approval from the
Fire Official that the development has adequate fire flows for such a reduction. Prior to final site plan
approval please coordinate this effort with the Fire and Rescue Dept to assure compliance with
Section 4.11.3 (Al).
4. [32.5.2(a)] and 4.6.41 Setbacks. As depicted the turnaround for the 20' Private Alley does not provide
for the required 20' setback requirement of the Rear Yard of the townhouse lot. As depicted the
townhouse currently encroaches into the required Rear Setback as measured from the easement. This
item shall be revised to meet the setback requirements prior to final site plan approval.
5. [Comment] The applicant shall work with Fire and Rescue and VDOT to determine the appropriate
number of bollards required to adequately prevent through traffic for the Emergency Access Road.
Their approval of the bollard design shall be required.
6. [32.5.2(n) and 4.12.16(d) ]. Dimension all proposed parking spaces on the plan. Parallel parking along
Lochlyn Hill Drive shall be a minimum dimension of 9 feet wide and 20 feet long. The site plan
makes note that 7 spaces shall be provided on one side of the road but fails to depict them on the plan.
7. [32.7.9.7(a2) &(e)] Screening. Provide the required screening for the adjoining residential lots directly
behind the townhomes off- street parking area and turn around.
8. [14- 302(A)4] Private easements. The Access and Maintenance Easement of the SWM pond will
require a maintenance agreement. Also, the 30' Access Easement and Open Space will require a
maintenance agreement. The County Attorney will be required to review/ approve the documents prior
to final plat approval.
Eng- ineeriu Division Approval. of (1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the .Code of the
County of Albemarle.
2. A Stormwater Management Plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code.
3. All easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
4. Road plans.
Albemarle County Fire & Rescue Approval. 0 Cop is to be submitted for review)
Fire and Rescue approval is required for final site plan approval.
Albemarle County Service Authority Approval. (2 Copies are required to be submitted for review)
1. Submit a master plan for the entire development (city and county) to assist in utility coordination
between the ACSA, RWSA and the City.
2. Submit a hydraulic analysis of the entire development for the proposed water infrastructure.
3. Submit 3 sets of the final site plan directly to the ACSA for construction review and approval.
4. Relocate the proposed sewer running parallel to Vegas Court to the back of the properties along Vegas
Court and Lochlyn Hill Drive.
Virginia Department of Transportation Approval. (1 Copy is required to be submitted for review)
1. Details for the temporary Turnaround including surfacing, diameter, etc. should be included on the site
plan.
2. While the intersection with the emergency access road and Lochlyn Hill drive is in the City of
Charlottesville, the sight line for the intersection opposite the emergency access road extends outside
of the proposed right -of -way. A sight line easement may be appropriate.
3. Attached are VDOT comments which shall be worked out with VDOT prior to approval.
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact me at
extension 3443, cperez @albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
l
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
• � 1H •
pf
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .
1801 Orange Road
.Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July22, 2013
Mr..Christopher Perez,
.Senior Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP- 2013 -00026 _ Lochlyn Hill Phase IB
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Site Plan for Lochlyn Hill.— :Phase IB dated 4/221,13 with
revisions dated 5/6/13 and 6127113 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following
comments: C.
1. The comments identified in a Site Committee Review letter dated June 19, 2013
addressed to Mr. Glenn Brooks have been adequately addressed.
2. Details for the Temporary Turnaround including surfacing, diameter, etc. should be
included on the: site plan.
3. While the intersection with the emergency access road and Lochlyn Hill Drive is in the
City of Charlottesville, the sight line for the Intersection opposite the emergency access
road extends outside of the proposed right -of -way. A sight line easement may be
appropriate,
4. Review continents included in a letter dated July 1.2, 2013 addressed to Mr. Max Greene
for SUB - 2013 -00092 should be addressed prior to site plan approval for SDP -2013-
00026.
If you need additional information concerning this praJect, please feel -free to contact me...
Sincerely,
Troy..Austin
Area Land Use Engineer .
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT..org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3619
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
.July 12, 2013
Mr. Max Greene
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB - 2013 -00092 Lochlyn Hill,.Phase lA & 1B Road Plans
Dear Mr. Greene:
We have reviewed the Road, Utility, E &SC, and SWM Plan for Lochlyn Hi11.Phase IA & 1B
dated June 24, 2013 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
Sheet 3
1. The 20' Private Access Easements for Shared Driveways should specify the lots:.that-will
use the entrances for access.
2. Are any of the proposed lots going to access Vegas Court? If so, it should be noted on
the plans.
.3. Please note, for any entrance that will serve as access for 3 to -5 lots, stopping sight
distance at that entrance must be met.
4. While the 20' emergency access road will connect to Lochlyn Hill Drive within the
Charlottesville City Limits, it appears that the entrance could serve up to 7 lots and
should meet the standards for a Private Subdivision Road. .
5. To ensure a sound pavingjoint when Lochlyn Hill Drive is extended to the east, the
terminus should be "squared off' rather than angled as shown.
6. There appears to be conflicts with street trees at the entrances between lots 9 and I Q;
between lots 13 and 14, between lots 4 and 5, at lot 1, and at lot 6.
7. I'm not convinced that the bollards shown on the emergency access road will prevent
passenger vehicle traffic. An alternate solution needs to be considered.
8. The right -of -way width of Pen Park Lane north of the intersection with Lochlyn Hill
Lane should be labeled.
10. The right -of -way for Pen Park Lane to the east of Phase 1 will needto lineup with the
right -of -way in Phase 1. This can be addressed in the future phase of this project.
Sheet 4
11. Manhole 6 should be located on the opposite side of Pen Park Lane so that the lateral
crossing.for lot 7 is more perpendicular and does not cross directly in the intersection.
Sheet 5
12. Storm.pipe 26A should run -from structure 26B to structure 24 instead' of to structure 26.
This would eliminate- a crossing of Pen Park Lane..
13. The locations of structures 24 and 26 should be adjusted so that the storm pipe 25
crossing is more perpendicular.
14. The location of structure 20 should be adjusted so that the storm pipe 21 crossing is more
perpendicular.
15. Structure -14 is currently located in the shared entrance between lots 4 and 5. Please be
aware that this structure location as well as the location of structure 16 will need to be
adjusted so that-the storm pipe 15 crossing remains as perpendicular as possible.
'16. The drainage easements for storm pipes 9 and 12A need to be labeled as such.
'17. The storm pipe collecting runoff at the yard drains between Pots 18 and '19 should be
realigned so that they connect to storm structure 2H instead of structure 2D. The private
yard drains should not be connected directly into structures and storm sewer that will be
maintained by VDOT.
18.1 believe that drainage channels would better handle the lot surface runoff than would the
proposed yard drains. 'Yards need to be graded more precisely with yard drains and"
drains tend to become clogged with. grass clippings, leaves, and other debris.
19. VDOT's storm sewer maintenance will not include any storm sewer downstream of .
structure 6, any storm sewer downstream of structure 2D (VDOT will maintain structure
2D), any storm sewer downstream of structure 2H, or any of the storm sewer included as
part of the yard drain system.
" 20. The storm sewer should be reworked between structures 18F and 18B such that the road
runoff will be conveyed downstream via storm sewer located with VDOT right -of -way.
Sheet 6
21. The areas noted on the Trip Generation table should be specified on the map.
Sheet 7
.22. The standard details shown on sheet 7 need to be-the most current details as provided on
the VDOT website.
Sheet 9
.23. The length of storm pipe 27 as shown in the drainage calculations is different than the
length in the profile,-resulting in a different slope of pipe. This needs to be-revised and
.recalculated.
.24. The length of storm pipe 26A as shown in the drainage calculations is different than the
length in the profile. In addition, the invert out of structure 26B is different than the-
invert shown on the profile. The combination of the differing length and invert results in
-- a different slope -of pipe. — This -needs to be- r- evised -and recalculated —.P- lease- note, –that the-
lI above.
25. The rim elevation for structure 26B in the calculations is different from that indicated in
on the profile. Since the elevation in the calculations is lower, this has no impact on the
calculations; however, the elevations should be consistent.
26. The length of storm pipe 2G as shown in the drainage calculations. is different than the
length in the profile, resulting in a different slope of pipe. While the difference is not
significant, the'lengths and slopes should be consistent.
.27. I did not see where the section of storm sewer between the pipe inlet and structure 26B
was included in the drainage calculations.
Sheet 10
.28. A note should be added indicating that steps will be regbited on all drainage structures
with a depth of 4'` or greater.
29. Some of the curve data on the profile for Pen Park Lane- LochlynHill Lane has been cut
off.
30. The final elevation should be added to the notation indicating the location that Pen Park
Lane becomes Lochlyn Hill Zane.
31. The station, elevation, and notation of the intersection of Lochlyn Hill Lane and Lochlyn
Hill Drive should be added to the profiles for Lochlyn Hill Drive and Pen Park Lane:
Lochlyn Hill Lane.
32. The-station, elevation, and notation of the intersection of Lochlyn Hill Lane and Pen Park
Lane should be added to the profile for Pen Park Lane.
33. The elevation of the road at the end of Phase 1 on Pen Park Lane should be added to the
profile.
34. The elevation of the road at the start and end of Phase 1 on Lochlyn Hill Drive should be
added to the profile.
Sheet 12
35.A note should be added indicating that steps will be required.on all drainage structures
with a depth of 4' or greater.
36. The profile for the storm sewer between structure 26B and 26 indicates that the culvert
tying into structure 26B is at a grade of 19.5 %. This storm sewer /ditch should be revised
to reduce the grade of this pipe. In addition, any pipe over 1694 ) requires anchoring.
37. Structures 12B, 12D, 18F, and 1 SH do not meet the minimum height requirement as
identified in the Road and Bridge Standards. The storm sewer-needs to be revised so that
all structures meet this requirement.
38. Some of the structure information has been cutoff from the profile for the storm sewer
between storm structures 2D and 2.
Sheet 14
39. I believe the usage of a paved construction entrance defeats the entire purpose of a
construction entrance,: This.i.construction- entrance should be stone and if it is not, the
wash.rack should be required.
If you need additional information coneerriing this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
TroyAustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
,Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT;grg
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING