HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500071 Review Comments Final Plat 2015-05-15�pF A
vt�r�1Q
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Old Trail Village - Block 12, Phase B, Final Plat
Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc/David A. Jordan [914 Monticello Road,
Charlottesville, VA 22902, DJordan@roudabush.com]
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties [ 1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100, Crozet, VA
22932, dave @oldtrailvillage.com]
Plan received date: 23 Apr 2015
Date of comments: 15 May 2015
Reviewer: John Anderson
Plan Coordinator: Johnathan Newberry
Final Plat (SUB201500071)
Sheets 2 -6:
1. Minor — Revise Block 12, Lot A / B Craig Enterprises reference to read DB 4567 PG 742, 745 (PLAT).
2. Final Plat requires an approved VSMP/WPO for block 15. Intersection of Rowcross St. and Claremont
Lane is part of block 15 (SUB201500020, RP, block 12, phase 2/3 —sheet 3). Planning may provide
guidance on whether Courtmont meets fire /rescue needs for Lots 8 -12. If so, Rowcross St. /Claremont Ln.
intersection may be optional (yet many easements affected). It is likely Rowcross St. /Claremont Ln. is
essential to this Plat, in which case, approval requires approved VSMP for block 15. ACCD is reluctant to
consider any request to amend WP0201400071 (block 12 /phase 1) since the (future) bioretention facility
approved with WP0201300021/WP0201400071 appears unable to treat or control additional runoff.
3. Final Plat requires approved VSMP/WPO for block 12, phase 2/3; this is also problematic. (E -mail: ACCD
to RGA/OTV, Wed 5/13/2015 4:17 PM)
4. Revise south end Private Alley A boundaries /easements consistent with block 12, phase 2/3 RP comments
(SUB201500020), consistent with Approved initial site plan geometry /Access requirements (Lots 23, 24).
Sheet 1 of 6
5. C20 radius appears that it should be 25' since Access Easement defines PL, and Access Easement R =25'.
Ref. Approved block 12, Phase 1, Final Site Plan, sheet 4.
6. C4 and C19 radii appear to be 12.5' since Rowcross Street RW =55' and FC/FC =30'. Revise as needed.
7. C25 and C26 radii appear to be 12.5' (same rationale). Ref. block 15 RP. Revise as needed.
8. EC7 — Revise if C19 revised.
Sheet 2 of 6
9. North boundary of Lots 8, 9, 10: Appears distance should be 144.77' (v. 151.00'). Revise as needed.
10. Compare C20 with C7 of Final Plat, block 12, Lots AB (SUB201400182). C7 radius =24'. C20 =23'. It
appears radii should be identical. Also, item #5, above. Revise as needed.
11. At SW corner Lot 12, label variable width sight distance easement.
Sheet 4 of 6
12. Sheet 4/6: Revise PDE 26 to PDE 27 —ref. Easement Width Requirements, sheet 10, block 12 phase 2/3 RP.
13. Sheet 4/6: Provide easement for storm pipe #2, between inlets 3 and 22.
14. Sheet 4/5: Revise easement/EL8 since waterline blow -off assembly will not work at this location.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Sheet 5 of 6
15. Reference Lot 11 in 0.36' Arc tie (A = 0.36') if tie is in relation to Lot 11. At this scale, tie is ambiguous.
16. See EL8 comment, sheet 4.
Sheet 6 of 6
17. Check Drainage Easements at S end Alley A — Revise as necessary, per road plan comments (Alley to match
Approved initial site plan).
18. See PDE 27 comment, sheet 4.
19. See easement for pipe #2, sheet 4.
20. Note: Drainage CL distance is in places identical with storm pipe lengths (no provision for MH diameter).
In this case, all drainage items appear to remain within proposed easements, but over extended distances or
with additional MHs, unaccounted MH diameter could shift drainage elements to the edge of (or outside) an
easement. There is no apparent practical effect in this instance. No revision requested.
Thank you, David
ACCD — 434.296 -5832 -x3069
SUB201500071 -Old Trail 12 _phase B_fpt- 051515