HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300026 Review Comments 2013-04-23Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Monday, July 29, 2013
Christopher Perez
CD
Initial Site Plan
Approval 7-29-13 w/ conditions
Approved
OF
a�
. r'IRGII3Ip'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: July 29, 2013
Subject: SDP - 201300026 Lochlyn Hill - Phase II - Initial Site Plan
the initial site p:c S. airmr :, mal leir.e i', The sl:3 lic,,:a t neglected to pay the lee prior ,_ iP"... `S" RCs
meeting, thus cornnrteni5 vv re �F ilhhe �l ' ill the ,e el;i n . R V xa
. F_ .,. >, , riis application vvams reviewed against Site Dev l ol:?r ='den Ran C)nki It
appears that lot lines are shown on the plan, bLit no subdivision application was sulb flitt . An
subdivision reiat. d cr;iiiii?'"nts aure prCSvI:.ed for reference only unless ,' =l se:iss ry € ?r site plawi
approval, Raii
k k R
3 'Kll ,f a � This phase : the sUICma s it �Cr� d l � CiLn and Gri boarders: as such iiC
advisable, that the vvC•lk s with the z,; j d iiiIiC 'his driase wr ..i� 1l> %
tint. the �.� €.' , iell as tt ?. counity Wiii "n `required to sig n the su foT, €...w proposal tc3
include roe[ lc',n revie it, a Id !,xondi iq of Noads.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. Side yard setbacks for R4 zoning are 15'; however, if the applicant aims to
reduce the setback to 10' as depicted on the site plan 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 (A1). In the case of a side yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official
may require a guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this
section, and this guarantee may include, but not be limited to, appropriate deed restrictions,
disclosure, and other such instruments, which shall be of a substance and be in a form approved
by the fire official and the county attorney, and shall be recorded in the records of the circuit court
of the county," Also, if the above is complied with on the site plan and subdivision plat assure that
the setbacks note is revised to reference "10' side setbacks per requirements of Zoning Ordinance
Section 4.11.3"
Rev 1. As requested by the applicant this item shall be a condition of approval. Fire and
_- Rescue-appro
plan approval.
"',:srya ic't d 11o� ._. t� _�. ,. G:, .r�,t tiie'yard setback, i «s t.i €IC�1,!iri-E €ts �,�r �: ��?..: yard a i €, the
F f
30' Acces-'s
L:ez 1�1 i f . �J o 1. 3Jr w ! r l tic"! f t -''deig t 10f Y a 10 ?he; 0
X" e;
r s
<�`c%c:;_�' �",. ?r>r;i € >r,l,i ??)li? ?'7 €�' ii gc��;�i: aal.' #rzi "t to i"af>rft.I %a� <z., ,jt� )� >ltf,'�j
yard €o -b ? as �. shvi ' ,�Ird Per 4-6-3d. The remrair"i1ng por c F of he, Fzisament
6. [4.6.4] As depicted the 7-turn around for the 20' Private Alley does not meet the setback
requirements for Rear Yard. As depicted it currently encroaches into the required Rear Setback.
Revise to address the issue.
Examples of a couple potential solutions: (A) Redesign the lot layout for Townhouse A to provide
adequate setback area (6) Utilize an alternative design standard for the turnaround (see design
standards manual. (C) Redesign the alley
Rev 1. The waiver of Section 4.6.4 dated July 1, 2013 has been reviewed; however, the
ordinance does not provide for such a waiver of the rear setbacks. This item shall be
appropriately addressed prior to final site plan approval.
ri?-ix iF)i:t€cb i ��; €�w (rit `��i �€ �� �:Cri ) . ,��s e ,v M
to
t' (such a 3' i f and provide ?. g', �' l ti �� ''a^, d /cat. 7
i „ail #� e�� Ia�?�s� r.� :��1€�u.« ,w..i1 i� sl�;y1, � >�?.� €�7r�.)},1�,i� c� rid,£' stating', i.� €�z fi.w, t�� €.. {.a «. .., �aw,�,(�.. >�i
ci -sewed C' lk -, us ir :< �i t 3e s.s; ��:C�r the i"t1_ `e i oel� �r�r• p
i,.,z .; sze E ra ,.
�3�i i.� �� �a�4� Gc�sa,i �1 €i � -_.,. x,
[Comment] County staff advises the applicant work with the Fire and Rescue Department and
VDOT to determine the appropriate number of bollards which should be required for the
Emergency Access Road. Staff feels the location and number of the bollard(s), a single bollard in
the center of the road, will not prevent through traffic. Rather staff recommends at a minimum a
row of three bollards be installed across the road to adequately prevent through traffic. Revise.
Rev 1. As requested by the applicant this item shall be a condition of approval. Pending
VDOT and Fire and Rescue approval prior to final site plan approval
"goad dc,,e rid, en � t � x ' p.i{ p line, � S o 14-
,.i.. }ii C1 i•Z�i� „�.i [ � �.'( r'i�fw /.1�:14E i J
f.i.:1 :rfr,s3._I31 it <F �.li ��.ii nf:;iFSi +..�.F r�i,<i£ IiSf �n l.. c.�t t «nItIti tii /i:ii tS.?�i �:i.�f l,t #F <<).,; t.F r�£:.i �.:i. EYf�.� L,..,:<�. Lf3w,
to i)'f <.J bfef.?I', %;
/.
�b Via,, th to c-,v e road, i � sides t ks t �: ?E e i't j ape y line.
�, 1 3 �%” :i, s,€.t� "�i.. �� lit sL; . i�� ,� _.I +�.� �,ts~ �,.�,i. � � €,�,��.,w;r"�,
,<,,,' ari,�und „tic . Fw !FC�,s ,•r a ,,,, sz 0< V a ei K)E°1 sccdi§ '= i=1. -, 1 "C- .}; C I,T € { ";
pjk , >., ', "= �'i'1��, ;w ti h-- w e tia of t.1r C,di tc tic; ! ;1 t s :ie ks to t i
li lw t IW and t {. s rx 's t rY! - i q - �1 t� w �.?'',�: 2w i e h t f € I n .:,�,,,.
T0- [32- 5:2-(n) and 4-1- 2-1- 6(d)-]- Parallel- parking along Road -B- shall -be a minimum - dimension -of -g -fee
wide and 20 feet long. The site plan depicts these spaces as 7'x20'; however, this does not meet
the requirements of the ordinance. Revise.
Rev 1. The parking spaces on Lochlyn Hill Drive are required for the proposal. As such the
2
spaces are required to be depicted and dimensioned on the plan and stripped (9x20'
minimum). This shall be a condition of final site plan approval.
� � ' i x rz� £( do) c a reach I i ,:F.
As ..,,,ics;. �w.� �riL � ✓�� .���� street C:[ P' «S�? \ttl us�.?Y �.>n. >.o ��i� .� €��� � >�I �t�"�'�5
�y£ri z x z; as s is i ii YG.: Y d� lY" ,..N n lh c a S � �"? °" - '�f, I�1 £ .pN. Or,
.fir �l. , iui �" �, ., a,<, �.,� , ,.. �� ,,.�;�..;
�� as s i i r� ,a s' .^��' �g "✓€ v £ �'e �` p 2 y� t t } ('+
n,a le t w. tenmiane > ie shfap Y".,'.a, rn et -the,, .�� v 4 i i£��w.�C i�., ai �3 I� C 3 sc , i� �L �% � .µ Le L o
the .`.., a spaces. ;lei , � Vii'? the Plat i �i r J� I , �u � ,1 {� .i� � %C > €��i sF s 'BFI � to �€ i.? �! i t�:ew:.; € i`i
Di?. fe i.ai n a£. .i or, osi`e d parking ar l..Cap<; on, I i e site plan and ..i. sw:i. re th 'lhes di m`w n ;sio
0i", `L',he ordinani e ,.ills h"'Cloc" s r.i,'
this, on f h' 's'h'M,' .i ar", ?r r<" <`
e, . :ev;: ,.w .. or _, ,„fie .x, G.te .. w'i
12. [32.7.9.7(a2) &(e)] Screening. The 8' tall wooden fence provides the required screening for the
adjoining residential lots directly behind the townhomes off - street parking area; however, it
appears that the residential properties which are at the end of the paved turn around do not have
any screening from the townhomes parking area. The preliminary plat for Phase IA of the
subdivision has these properties listed as Lots 19 and 21. Revise to provide the required
screening to these lots by extending the fence to conceal the townhome parking area. Also, per
concerns from adjoining property owners the agent feels it is appropriate that the applicant provide
plantings at interval along the fence line to aid in screening and provide a softened visual buffer
from adjoining uses. The plantings will be reviewed during the final site plan stage of the proposal
w/ the landscape plan.
Rev 1. The applicant has requested to utilize landscaping (planting strip) for the required
screening rather than fencing /planting combination. Thus the required landscaping for
screening purposes shall be a condition of final site plan approval. Per Section 32.7.9.7(a)
Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only a
planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening, the planting strip or the existing
vegetation shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided, the plant
materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on
center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10) feet on center, or an
alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent.
13. '2 5, z z ....,, i� r L' z' `£ b ;,a f ) .v£ d 1+' v'i n, s, 2 bei £ € '., ee
rye i
r�, .. ...:1pJh ��, ✓�ra wst �?i�i ....er,.�tti � a✓'rs. < .- � i>,->; a.,��f, ����'� j sai� iw.p � w,N
will e ivv ii.. >�f i; € =iw:i £ p✓i
-' }la ? �s..dril z3a.i t` < a h to -'he ,�i��'- S i 1 }: >' � r�L :i >: yszrw?
it�i y ti,'�a i....... ;-�` ?ii:,:;...; i >�wi_ sa£.r;L=J,a i.as: >i� C. ?£l >.(...`! 7. _.. i:. ✓ �✓. ..�s:.bhr. is .�x<a. v..:.::"°w.`,
17. [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 s
maintenance agreement. The County Attorney will be required to review/ approve the documents
prior to final plat approval. Rev 1. This item shall be a condition of approval.
VDOT— Troy Austin
- See Attached Comment Letter. VDOT approval shall be required prior to approval.
Engineering Comments —Max Greene
1. No objections
E911 -- Andrew Slack
.1. Approved
ACSA — Alex Morrison
Approved
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
- No objections
Fire and Rescue Robbie Gilmer
- No objections
RWSA — Victoria Fort
- No objections
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cgerez a�albemarle. orp or 434-
296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
C
�.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
.Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819'
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July 22, 2013
Nft..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 4/22413 with
revisions dated 516113 and 6/27l13 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following
comments:
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 project, please feel free to contact me...
Sincerely,
• 0
TroAustin
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
(I)NM off
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 IA & 1B Road Plans
Dear Mr. Greene:
We have reviewed the Road, Utility, E &SC, and SWM Plan for Lochlyn Hill;::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 .thatwill
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 paving joint 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 10;
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.
Vegas Court,_
10. The right -of -way far Pen Park Lane to the east of Phase 1 will need to line up 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 to 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. I 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. =T - his -needs to be- revised -and recalculated—.Nease- note, – that -the-
11 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 required 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 Lane.
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 Larie.
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 16% requires anchoring.
37. Structures 12B, 12D, I SF, and I 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 cut* off 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 .construction- ,entrance should be stone and if it is not, the
wash Tack should be required.
If you need additional information concerning this�project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
TroyAustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT:prg
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Friday, July 26, 2013
Max Greene
Engineering
Initial Site Plan
No Objection
1 .
co
0 VIRGINIA
WEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
.Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
July 22, 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!22113 with
revisions dated 516113 and 6127/13 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following
comments:
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 comments 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 project, please feel free to contact me..
Sincerely,
TroAustin
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
p ?�
?OAEI' ®f VIRGINIA.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
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 Hill, Phase 1A & 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 paving joint 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 1 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.
9 —The proposed sidewalk along egas Court should -be extended to the existing sidewalk ni
Vegas Court. .
10. The right -of -way for Pen Park Lane to the east of Phase 1 will need to line up 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 lots 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. I 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 2613 is different than the
invert shown on the profile. The combination of the differing length and invert results in
- - -- a different- slope -of- pipe. —T- his - needs -to be- revised- and - recalculated: P- lease- note, –that the -
calculations should reflect the final alignment which may change as a result of comment
11 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 required on all drainage structures
with a depth of 4' or greater.
29. Some of the curve data on the profile for Pen Park Lane — Lochlyn Hill 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 Lane.
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 16 % requires anchoring.
37. Structures 12B, 12D, 18F, and 18H 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 cut off 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 construction entrance should be stone and if it is not, the
wash rack should be required.
If you need additional information concerning this: project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT,org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Monday, July 22, 2013
Troy Austin
VDOT
Initial Site Plan
Added to the conditions of approval letter. cpp
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Robbie Gilmer
Fire Rescue
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans dated 6/27/13
No Comments or objections
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Andrew Slack
E911
Initial Site Plan
Approved.
Approved
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Alexander Morrison
ACSA
Initial Site Plan
previously approved 6-20-13
No Objection
Maude Ginty
Service Auth6rity
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer
DATE: June 20, 2013
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP - 2013 - 00026: Lochlyn Hill, Phase IB — Initial Site
Plan
TMP# 061A0000000200
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.
A 10 inch water line is located approximately 20' 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 20' 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 construction plans required for final construction 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:
• Submit a master plan for the entire development (city and county) to assist in utility
coordination between the ACSA, RWSA and the City.
• Submit a hydraulic analysis of the entire development for the proposed water
infrastructure.
• Submit 3 sets of the final site plan directly to the ACSA for construction review and
approval.
• Relocate the proposed sewer running parallel to Vegas Court to the back of the
properties along Vegas Court and Lochlyn Hill Drive.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthoriy.org
jI \ \!
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
June 19, 2013
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments June 20'h Site Review Meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the June 201h 2013 Site Review Committee Meeting:
SDP - 201300030 Hollymead Town Center Block IV — Initial Site Plan (Ellie Ray)
1. The internal streets shown for the townhomes will not be considered for acceptance into VDOT's
secondary road system as designed.
2. If Laurel Park Lane is proposed to be taken into the VDOT secondary road system, the two townhouse
entrances will need to meet the 225 corner clearance requirement as discussed in Appendix F of the Road
Design Manual. If this requirement cannot be met, an Access Management exception will need to be
requested.
3. The sidewalk shown along Laurel Park Lane does not meet the requirement found in the Road Design
manual for a buffer strip. If this road will become part of the secondary road system, a design exception
will be required.
4. If Laurel Park Lane will not be part of the secondary road system, VDOT has no objection to the proposed
site plan.
SDP - 201300026 Lochlyn Hill, Phase H3 — Initial Site Plan (Christopher Perez)
1. It would be helpful to have a copy of the overall planned development to show how Phase IB fits into the
project.
2. The stub -out of the intersection of Road B and Lochlyn Hill Drive should be built to the intersection return
and reserve the right -of -way all the way to the adjacent property. If the property to the east were to be
redeveloped, the right -of -way would be in place to extend the road at that time.
3. The sight lines for the intersection of Lochlyn Hill Drive and Road B are not shown at the correction
origination location. Furthermore, the sight line to the south crosses through a proposed street tree which
appears to impact the available sight distance. The available sight distance to the east of the intersection
will need to be confirmed if/when Road B is extended in that direction.
4. CG -12's need to be provided at the intersection of Lochlyn Hill Drive and Road B.
If you need additional information concerning these projects, please contact me.
Sincerely,
A A�
Troylstin P.E.
Y
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
of A
b
vlRGINIP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
6 -19 -13
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP - 201300026 Lochlyn hill — Phase II — Initial Site Plan
Mr. Collins:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Initial
comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other
agencies, as applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) - Comments Included
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) - Comments Included
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) - Comments Included
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) - Comments Included
Virginia Department of Transportation- Comments Included
Albemarle County Building Inspections — No Comments
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — No Comments
Albemarle County Service Authority - Comments Pending
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should
not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that
will be required to be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval. Normally the Lead Reviewer will either
approve with conditions or deny the Initial Site Plan within 15 days of the Site Review Meeting; however,
due to the vast amount of comments which may cause the site to be substantially reworked, staff requests
a resubmittal /revision to address the comments.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Planning Services
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
�'IRGII�Q'
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 19, 2013
Subject: SDP - 201300026 Lochlyn Hill — Phase II — Initial Site Plan
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
1. [Comment] The applicant shall pay the required SRC notification fee of $208.93 prior to receiving
the initial site plan approval letter. The applicant neglected to pay the fee prior to the SRC
meeting, thus comments were withheld till the meeting.
2. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. It
appears that lot lines are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application was submitted. Any
subdivision related comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan
approval.
3. [Comment] This phase of the development straddles County and City boarders; as such it is
advisable that the applicant works with the City during this phase of the development. Please note
that the City as well as the County will be required to sign the subdivision plat for this proposal to
include road plan review and bonding of the roads.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. Side yard setbacks for R4 zoning are 15'; however, if the applicant aims to
reduce the setback to 10' as depicted on the site plan 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 (A1). In the case of a side yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official
may require a guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this
section, and this guarantee may include, but not be limited to, appropriate deed restrictions,
disclosure, and other such instruments, which shall be of a substance and be in a form approved
by the fire official and the county attorney, and shall be recorded in the records of the circuit court
of the county,"
Also, if the above is complied with on the site plan and subdivision plat assure that the setbacks
note is revised to reference "10' side setbacks per requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section
4.19.3"
5. [4.6.3d] As depicted "Lot E" does not meet the yard setback requirements for the yard facing the
30' Access Easement. As depicted the yard is required to be a Front Yard with a 25' setback.
Revise to address the issue.
Examples of a couple potential solutions: (A) Redesign the lots or loose a lot (B) Re -label the 30'
Access Easement from the nearest bollard to Road B as "30' Alley Easement'; this will allow the
yard to be classified as a Side Yard per 4.6.3d. The remaining portion of the 30' Access Easement
should remain a "30' Access Easement':
6. [4.6.4] As depicted the. T -turn around for the 20' Private Alley does not meet the setback
requirements for Rear Yard. As depicted it currently encroaches into the required Rear Setback.
Revise to address the issue.
Examples of a couple potential solutions: (A) Redesign the lot layout for Townhouse A to provide
adequate setback area (B) Utilize an alternative design standard for the turnaround (see design
standards manual. (C) Redesign the alley
7. [32.5.2(0)] Clearly depict /label any.areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for dedication to
public use (such as street right -of -way), and provide a note stating that the land is to be dedicated
or reserved for public use. Also, on the plan please denote the intended maintenance/ ownership
of the "30' Access Easement ".
8. [Comment] County staff advises the applicant work with the Fire and Rescue Department and
VDOT to determine the appropriate number of bollards which should be required for the
Emergency Access Road. Staff feels the location and number of the bollard(s), a single bollard in
the center of the road, will not prevent through traffic. Rather staff recommends at a minimum a
row of three bollards be installed across the road to adequately prevent through traffic. Revise.
9. [14 -409B] As depicted "Road B" does not extend to the abutting property line. Pursuant to 14-
409B "All public streets within a subdivision shall be extended and constructed to the abutting
property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on
adjoining lands...':
Revise the plan to extend the road, plantings and sidewalks to the abutting property line. The only
way around this requirement is to request a waiver per section 14 -409D of the subdivision
ordinance. If this is your intent, please review the section of the ordinance which speaks to the
waiver and submit the required information for staff review upon submittal of the subdivision for
the project.
10. [4.12.16] Parallel parking along Road B shall be a minimum dimension of 9 feet wide and 20 feet
long. The site plan depicts these spaces as 7'x20'; however, this does not meet the requirements
of the ordinance. Revise.
11. [32.5.2(n) and 4.12.16] As depicted the two off street parking spaces for each unit (9 in the
driveway and 1 in the garage) are neither clearly marked nor identifiable on the plans. Staff is
unable to determine if the spaces meet the parking dimension standards. Notably the 12'x26' or
the 12'x24' spaces depicted on the plat are not large enough to accommodate two vehicles each.
Dimension all proposed parking areas on the site plan and assure they meet the dimension
requirements of the ordinance (this includes the garage parking space, if the garages are inside
the townhouses please show /depict this on the site plan including dimensions).
12. [32.7.9.8(2) &(e)] Screening. The 8' tall wooden fence provides the required screening for the
adjoining residential lots directly behind the townhomes off - street parking area; however, it
appears that the residential properties which are at the end of the paved turn around do not have
any screening from the townhomes parking area. The preliminary plat for Phase IA of the
subdivision has these properties listed as Lots 19 and 21. Revise to provide the required
screening to these lots by extending the fence to conceal the townhome parking area.
2
Also, per concerns from adjoining property owners the agent feels it is appropriate that the
applicant provide plantings at interval along the fence line to aid in screening and provide a
softened visual buffer from adjoining uses. The plantings will be reviewed during the final site plan
stage of the proposal w/ the landscape plan.
13. [32.5.2(e)] Landscaping. On sheet 2, Existing Conditions, label the existing tree types: whether
they are composed of evergreen, deciduous, or a mix of type.
14. [32.5.2(p)] Landscape plan approval will be required for final site plan approval.
15. [Comment] Add the Site plan Number SDP2013 -00026 to the cover sheet for present and future
reference.
16. [Comment] Remove the signature block on sheet 1.
17. [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.
Engineering Comments —Max Green
1. Please show temporary turnaround from Phase 1 and note that it will be removed with the final
approval of the plat for phase 2.
E911— Andrew Slack
1. The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) potential names for'Road B' before
the final plans are submitted for approval.
RWSA — Victoria Fort
Sheet 2:
1. Show the location of the existing RWSA 18" water line all the way to Woodmont Drive. Remove
labels from the water line.
Sheet 4:
1. Show the location of the existing RWSA 18" water line all the way to Woodmont Drive. Remove " ?"
labels from the water line.
2. Shift the location of the 90 degree bend (roughly 28' south of the 10 "x8" tap on the existing ACSA
Water line) so that there is at least 5' of horizontal separation from the fitting to the 18" RWSA water
line.
3. Call out a minimum of 18" of vertical separation at the crossing of the new 8" water line with the 18"
RWSA main.
Sheet 5:
1. Show the location of the existing RWSA 18" water line all the way to Woodmont Drive. Remove " ?"
labels from the water line.
2. Shift the location of the storm water intake structure (in front of 1160 Pen Park Lane) so that there
is at least 5' of horizontal separation from the 18" RWSA water line.
3. There are three locations where the proposed storm sewer will cross the RWSA 18" main. The
RWSA main should be test- pitted at each location to determine the depth. Call out a minimum of 18"
of vertical separation at each crossing with the RWSA main.
Sheet 6:
1. Please include all relevant notes from the attached RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes
(attached).
VDOT— Troy Austin
-- See Attached Comment Letter
Building Inspections Jay Schlothauer
- No objections
Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox
- No objections
ACSA — Alex Morrison
Comments are pending
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez(c)albemarle.org or 434-
296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
4
4
F?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 - 3819'
Gregory A. WhIrley
Commissioner of Highways
June 19, 2013
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments June 20'h Site Review Meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site PIans for the June 206', 2013 Site Review Committee Meeting:
SDP - 201300030 Hollymead 'Town Center Block IV — Initial Site Plan (Ellie Ray)
I . The internal streets shown for the townhomes will not be considered for acceptance..into VDOV s
secondary road system as designed.
2. If Laurel Park Lane is proposed to be taken into the VDOT secondary road system, the two townhouse
entrances will need to meet the 225 corner clearance requirement as discussed in Appendix F of the Road
Design Manual. If this requirement cannot be met, an Access Management exception will need to be
requested.
3. The sidewalk shown along Laurel Park Lane does not meet the requirement found in the Road Design
manual for a buffer strip. If this road will become part of the secondary road system, a design exception
will be required.
4. If Laurel Park Lane will not be part of the secondary road system, VDOT has no objection to the proposed
site plan.
SDP - 201300026 Lochlyn Hill, Phase IB — Initial Site Plan (Christopher Perez)
.1. It would be helpful to have a copy of the overall planned development to show how Phase IB fits into the
project.
2. The stub -out of the intersection of Road B and Lochlyn HiII Drive should be built to the intersection return
and reserve the right -of -way all the way to the adjacent property. If the property to the east were to be
redeveloped, the right -of -way would be in place to extend the road at that time.
3. The sight lines for the intersection of Lochlyn Hill Drive and Road B are not shown at the correction
origination location. Furthermore, the sight line to the south crosses through a proposed street tree which
appears to impact the available sight distance. The available sight distance to the east of the intersection
will need to be confirmed if/when Road B is extended in that direction.
4. CG -12's need to be provided at the intersection of Lochlyn Hill Drive and Road B.
If you need additional information concerning these projects, please contact me.
Sincerely,
:
y
TroY tin P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Shawn Maddox
Fire Rescue
Initial Site Plan
Fire Rescue has no objections to the plan dated 5/6/2013. Thank you for addressing the water supply and
emergency access requirements. SNM
No Objection
1
Christopher Perez
From:Victoria Fort [vfort@rivanna.org]
Sent:Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:43 PM
To:Christopher Perez
Cc:Alex Morrison
Subject:SDP 2013-026 Lochyln Hill- preliminary site plan
Chris,
RWSA has reviewed the Preliminary Site Plan for Lochlyn Hill as prepared by Collins Engineering and dated 4/22/2013
and offers the following comments for the engineer:
Sheet 2:
1. Show the location of the existing RWSA 18” water line all the way to Woodmont Drive. Remove “?” labels from
the water line.
Sheet 4:
1. Show the location of the existing RWSA 18” water line all the way to Woodmont Drive. Remove “?” labels from
the water line.
2. Shift the location of the 90 degree bend (roughly 28’ south of the 10”x8” tap on the existing ACSA water line) so
that there is at least 5’ of horizontal separation from the fitting to the 18” RWSA water line.
3. Call out a minimum of 18” of vertical separation at the crossing of the new 8” water line with the 18” RWSA
main.
Sheet 5:
1. Show the location of the existing RWSA 18” water line all the way to Woodmont Drive. Remove “?” labels from
the water line.
2. Shift the location of the storm water intake structure (in front of 1160 Pen Park Lane) so that there is at least 5’
of horizontal separation from the 18” RWSA water line.
3. There are three locations where the proposed storm sewer will cross the RWSA 18” main. The RWSA main
should be test-pitted at each location to determine the depth. Call out a minimum of 18” of vertical separation
at each crossing with the RWSA main.
Sheet 6:
1. Please include all relevant notes from the attached RWSA General Water and Sewer Notes (attached).
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information on any of the comments above.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
2
(P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295-1146
From: Victoria Fort
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:32 PM
To: 'Christopher Perez'
Cc: amorrison@serviceauthority.org
Subject: RE: SUB201300028 Lochyln Hill- preliminary subdivision plat
Chris,
RWSA has reviewed the revisions to SUB201300028 – Lochlyn Hill preliminary subdivision plat and has no further
comments at this time. I would however like to offer the following general comments for the developer:
1. RWSA would like to review the utility plan for the townhomes site to confirm that minimum utility
separation requirements are met (see my previous comments).
2. The Lochlyn development is located in both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. If
projected sewage flows from the overall development (including all phases) is expected to exceed
40,000 gallons per day, RWSA will require that a flow acceptance request be submitted by both the
ACSA and the City of Charlottesville for their respective sections before approving each site plan.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information, particularly on item #2 above.
Thank you,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295-1146
From: Victoria Fort
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:03 PM
To: 'Christopher Perez'
Cc: amorrison@serviceauthority.org
Subject: RE: SUB201300028 Lochyln Hills- preliminary subdivision plat
Chris,
I have reviewed the PDF scan you sent me and have the following comments for the applicant:
1. There are two water lines along Pen Park Lane – an 18” ductile iron main belonging to RWSA and a 10” cast iron
main belonging to the ACSA. Plans should be revised to show the location of both of these correctly.
2. The new 8” water line tap should be made on the ACSA water line.
3. There appear to be multiple proposed utility crossings with the RWSA water line. All utilities crossing the RWSA
main must have at least 18” of vertical separation.
4. RWSA would like to review the site plan once it is submitted for review.
3
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Victoria
Victoria Fort, EIT
Civil Engineer
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
695 Moores Creek Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(P): (434) 977-2970 ext. 205
(F): (434) 295-1146
From: Christopher Perez [mailto:cperez@albemarle.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 4:16 PM
To: Victoria Fort
Subject: RE: SUB201300028 Lochyln Hills- preliminary subdivision plat
As discussed over the phone attached is a PDF scan of the utility plan for the prelim plat.
thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:43 AM
To: vfort@rivanna.org
Subject: SUB201300028 Lochyln Hills– preliminary subdivision plat
Victoria,
I am checking in on the review status of SUB201300028 Lochyln Hills– preliminary subdivision plat, we just
got outta the SRC meeting for this project and the applicant has requested your comments. Please send me your
comments, if any, as soon as you finish them and I’ll forward them to the applicant.
Thanks
Christopher P. Perez | Senior Planner
Department of Community Development |County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road | Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Victoria Fort
RWSA
Initial Site Plan
per RWSA request they want to review the site plan.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Andrew Slack
E911
Initial Site Plan
The applicant should contact this office with a list of three (3) potential names for 'Road B' before the final plans are
submitted for approval.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Monday, May 20, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans revised May 6, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Max Greene
Engineering
Initial Site Plan
No Objection
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Shawn Maddox
Fire Rescue
Initial Site Plan
1. No hydrants are shown on the utility plan. It appears there may be some water structure at the intersection of
Road B and Lochlyn Hill Drive which should be labeled if it is a hydrant.
2. Please provide a hydrant near the intersection of Pen Park Lane and Lochlyn Hill Drive to ensure the proper
hydrant spacing of 500' or less.
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Jay Schlothauer
Inspections
Initial Site Plan
Based on plans dated April 22, 2013.
No comments or conditions.
No Objection
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
5 -1 -13
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SDP - 201300026 Lochlyn Hill — Phase II — Initial Site Plan
Mr. Collins:
Pursuant to Section 32.4.2.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, your
application for review of an Initial Site Plan has been found to be incomplete and thus has not
been accepted for official submittal for the following reasons: [each reason is preceded by the
applicable ordinance section and compliance with such section shall correct the insufficiency]
1. [32.5.2n, 32.5.1 c] COMMENT: Location and deminisions ofproposed improvements.
On the site plan provide the location and deminisions of the parking for the site (to
include parking on the street and in the alley). This information is crucial to determine
feasibility/ aprooveablity of the parking for the site.'
2. [32.5.2b] COMMENT: Schedule ofparking including the maximum amount required
and the amount provided. While the amount provided is noted on sheet 1, the maximum
amount required is not listed on the plan. Revise.
3. [32.5.2n, 32.5.1c] COMMENT: Location and deminisions ofproposed improvements.
On the site plan provide the maximum building footprint of the townhome structure.
4. [32.5.2L] COMMENT: Existing and proposed utilities. On the site plan provide the
location of the proposed utilities and utility easements, to include telephone, cable,
electric, and gas easements.
5. [32.5.2n] COMMENT: Location and deminisions ofproposed improvements. Is there to
be a fence of any kind separating Lot 20 and the townhouse structure? If so, provide the
fences location and deminisions on the site plan.
6. [32.5.2n] COMMENT: Location and deminisions ofproposed improvements. The site
plan notes that "Trash receptacles will be maintained on each individual lot. " Being that
the proposed building is made up of 5 attached units, how will non -end lots (lots B -D)
store their trash receptacles for trash pickup? Please locate these on the site plan and
provide their deminisions.
7. [32.5.2n] COMMENT: Location and deminisions ofproposed improvements. Are there
to be any walkways to and from the building to the sidewalk? If so, these shall be
depicted on the site plan w/ deiminsions.
You may obtain reinstatement of review as provided by Section 32.4.2.1(d) of Chapter 18 of the
Code. This section requires resubmittal within fifteen (15) days of the disapproval and the
submittal of a reinstatement fee of $240.00. The date of disapproval is the date of this letter. In
the event the developer fails to resubmit the plan within the fifteen (15) day period, the plan shall
be deemed to be disapproved and a new application and fee shall be required for submittal of the
plan. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely, ,
Christopher P. Perez
Senior Planner
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Christopher Perez
CD
Initial Site Plan
Scott,
Attached is the action letter for an incomplete application under the new ordinance for site plans. This initial review
was conducted by day 9 of the initial 10 day review period. If you have any questions please let me know, I tried to
encompass everything into the attached letter. I will be mailing this same letter to you via postal service, unless this
email will serve adequate. Let me know if you have any questions. (see attached)
Requested Changes
Project Name:
Date Completed:
Reviewer:
Department/Division/Agency:
Reviews
Comments:
Review Status:
Review Comments
LOCHLYN HILL - PHASE II - INITIAL
Friday, April 26, 2013
Max Greene
Engineering
Initial Site Plan
Please show temporary turn around from Phase 1 and note that it will be removed with the final approval of the plat
for phase 2.
Requested Changes