HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500071 Review Comments Final Plat 2015-11-28pF 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:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
Plan Coordinator:
Old Trail Village - Block 12, Phase B, Final Plat
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc/David A. Jordan [914 Monticello Road,
Charlottesville, VA 22902, DJordan(a-)roudabush.com]
March Mountain Properties [ 1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100, Crozet, VA
22932, dave @oldtrailvillage.com]
23 Apr 2015
9 Sep 2015
23 Nov 2015 (e- review /.PDF)
15 May 2015
17 Sep 2015
28 Nov 2015
John Anderson
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).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
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/WPO201400071 appears unable to treat or control additional runoff.
(Rev. 1) Acknowledged — WP02015- 00066 /under review. (Rev. 2) Addressed. WP0201500066
approved 17 Nov 2015.
3. Final Plat requires approved VSMP/WPO for block 12, phase 2/3; this is also problematic. (E -mail: ACED
to RGA/OTV, Wed 5/13/2015 4:17 PM) (Rev. 1) Addressed —see item #2.
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).
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn — reviewer visited RGA,
spoke with D. Jordan, 17 -Sep. Plat line -curve table data is taken directly from CAD element properties.
Accept reference R is accurate.
6. C4 and C19 radii appear to be 12.5' since Rowcross Street RW =55' and FC/FC =30'. Revise as needed.
(Rev. 1) Withdrawn —spoke with D. Jordan, 17 -Sep. Data taken directly from CAD element properties.
Accept reference R is accurate. —Also, #5, above.
7. C25 and C26 radii appear to be 12.5' (same rationale). Ref. block 15 RP. Revise as needed. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn. -#5, above.
8. EC7 — Revise if C19 revised. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. —45, above.
Sheet 2 of 6
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
9. North boundary of Lots 8, 9, 10: Appears distance should be 144.77' (v. 151.00'). Revise as needed. (Rev.
1) Withdrawn. — review error.
10. Compare C20 with C7 of Final Plat, block 12, Lots AM (SUB201400182). C7 radius =24'. C20 =23'. It
appears radii should be identical. Also, item #5, above. Revise as needed. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. -#5,
above.
11. At SW corner Lot 12, label variable width sight distance easement. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
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.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Sheet 4/6: Provide easement for storm pipe #2, between inlets 3 and 22. (Rev. 1) Addressed/NA — design
revised.
14. Sheet 4/5: Revise easement/EL8 since waterline blow -off assembly will not work at this location. (Rev. 1)
Partially Addressed. Compare block 12, phase 2/3 road plan ACSA easement, at this location, with sheet
4, ACSA Easement Plat at this location —there is a mismatch. Confirm Plat easement is accurate, and please
revise RP to reflect accurate easement boundaries. (RP does not include segment SL11.) Print two copies
of any affected RP sheets /submit. County will replace these sheets in block 12, phase 2/3 road plan. (Rev.
2) Addressed.
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.
(Rev. 1) Addressed/NA — design revised.
16. See EL8 comment, sheet 4. (Rev. 1) Addressed, but as follow-up, see comment #14, above.
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). (Rev. 1) As follow -up, David Jordan, RGA, has informed County that Plat
requires revision to match VSMP /WP02015 -00066 design. Please ensure Drainage Easements match
WP02015 -00066 design. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
18. See PDE 27 comment, sheet 4. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. See easement for pipe #2, sheet 4. (Rev. 1) Addressed/NA — design revised.
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. (Rev. 1)
Acknowledged.
New
1. Sheet 2: Legend (WAM 5) appears inconsistent with WAM VAR label use in body of plat. Revise;
recommend eliminate one label or the other. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
2. Sheets 4/6: New SWM Easement curve DC2 appears to intersect dwelling, Lot 24. Separate Easement and
dwelling. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
3. Sheet 6: Label stream, stream buffer, and 100 -yr floodplain. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
4. Sheet 5: Private Alley `A' east boundary is confusing: 54.59' v. 57.01' —which dimension is accurate?
Recommend review /edit this section of plat. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
5. All sheets: Road Plan identifies Existing Lots 1 -7 (block 12, phase A). Plat relabels as Lots 13 -19. This is
confusing. Revert to Lot 1 -7 labels used with prior (or prior- approved) plans /plats. Additional Note: A
complete reorganization of sheet 1 line -curve tables between the initial and revised Plat submission is very
confusing. All line -curve labels have changed. In the future, we ask that labels carry through to the
maximum extent, from initial to final. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
ACCD — 434.296 -5832 -0069
SUB201500071 -Old Trail 12 _phase B_fpt- 112815rev2_NoObj