HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300092 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2015-02-11��RGYN�A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
11 February 2015
Mr. Louis J. Lopez, III
Milestone Partners
(e -mail: llopez @mile stonepartners. co)
Re: Bond release request for Lochlyn Hill Phase IA & 1B Road Bond (SUB201300092)
Thank you for the documentation regarding completion of roads in the Lochlyn Hill Subdivision.
This bond is currently at $742,570. However, per your discussion with the County Engineer on
18 March 2014, the corrected bond amount of $965,270 is to be considered with future bond
reduction requests.
An AASHTO Type III Baricade, or similar, is needed at the alley connecting Lochlyn Hill to
Vegas Court.
The road name and traffic regulation signs are not built to county standards. They must be replaced with
signs and posts which meet the county standards, or a sign agreement must be completed and recorded
guaranteeing the future maintenance by the homeowners. Please be aware the agreement is for the posts,
and the sign plates must be to county standard. The agreement document can be found on the county
website at this address:
http: / /www.albemarle.org/upload /images /forms _center /departments /Community Development /forms /E
ngineering and WPO _ Forms/Street _Sign Requirements_ Maintenance_Agreement.pdf
The county road naming and property numbering ordinance can be found at this address:
http:// www.albemarle.orgLupload/images/ Forms_ Center /Departments /Geographic_ Data Services /Forms
/Road Naming and_PropertX Numbering Ordinance and Manual.pdf
The sign agreement must be accompanied by a detail of the post and sign arrangement which will be
maintained. An example of the county detail can be found at this address:
http: / /www.albemarle.or /g_upload /images/ forms _center /departments /Community Development/forms /E
ngineering and WPO _ Forms/Street _Sign Requirements_
_Road Naming and_PropertX Numbeng Ordinance _ and _Manual %20- %20Detail_C.pdf
The entrance gutter grade at 1160 Pen Park Lane E exceeds the VDOT maximum of 12 %. It is
our recommendation that this be corrected. The resident at this address is handicapped and has a
difficult time getting to the mail box with the current configuration.
At this time the subdivision bond may be reduced to $205,990 upon the installation of an
acceptable barricade.
Please contact me if you have questions.
#Sincer ly,
Deel
Max Greene
From: Glenn Brooks
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:36 AM
To: Max Greene
Subject: FW: Lochlyn Hill
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:54 PM
To: Jim Tolbert; 'L.J. Lopez'; Glenn Brooks; Greg Kamptner
Subject: Lochlyn Hill
I just signed both copies of the inter-jurisdictional agreement and forwarding one copy back to the City(attn:Jim
Tolbert).
Two things to note.
1. With respect to the County issuing building permits for new residences in Phase 1, we require an Agreement in
Lieu of a Plan for E&SC permitting before issuing the building permit. We will need proof that the City has
issued the Agreement or permit for the lot before approving the building permit.
2. For the Phase 1 Subdivision, we will notify the City when we have approved the plat and the subdivision is
bonded. We ask that the City not reduce or release the E&SC bond without first notifying the County. If that
happens, it may prove necessary for the County to increase the subdivision bond . We also anticipate requiring
some E&SC measures to be included with the County's subdivision bond to assure the work can continue if
there is a need to call thesubdivision bond. Without this, we would need for the City to first issue a stop work
order and demand the E&SC bond on their side. This recognizes it is possible the subdivision bond would be in
default without the E&SC bond held by the City being in default.
COMMONWEALTH of 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 IA & 1 B 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 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.
9. The proposed sidewalk along Vegas Court should be extended to the existing sidewalk on
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
21)), 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 revised and recalculated. Please 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,
"—� L�'
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT,org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Max Greene
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: July 30, 2013
Subject: SUB 2013— 00092 Lochlyn Hill — Phase 1 and 1B Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] This application was not submitted for subdivision plat review; comments provided are for
Road Plans only. Any subdivision related comments are provided for reference /recommendation purposes
only.
2. [Comment] It appears that a couple of the proposed tree locations have conflicts with proposed entrances to
the lots. These conflicts should be resolved before the road plan is approved.
Recommendations
3. [Comment] This 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. [4.6.3(a)] While not a requirement for road plan approval, as depicted on the road plan the side yard
setbacks abutting the "20' private access easements for shared driveways" are not accurately shown.
Pursuant to Section 4.6.3(a) "I fa shared driveway is concurrent with the shared lot line of the lots served by
the shared driveway, each primary structure also shall be located at least six (6) feet from the edge of the
shared driveway easement. " Thus on the plat there should be an additional 6' side yard setback from the
easement per Section 4.6.3(a). If the shared easements are to remain this will need to be correctly depicted
on the final subdivision plat prior to final subdivision plat approval.
5. [14- 302(A)9 and 4.6.41 While not a requirement for road plan approval, the rear setbacks for Lots 19 and 21
should be revised to account for the L- turnaround of the 20' Private Alley Easement. The rear setback shall
be measured from the easement. The approved preliminary subdivision plat for Phase I (SUB201300028)
did not contain a turn around on these lots, thus it was not relevant on that plat. This will need to be
corrected on the final subdivision plat prior to final subdivision plat approval.
6. [32.5.2(a)] and 4.6.4] Setbacks. While not a requirement for road plan approval, as depicted the L-
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.
7. [Comment] The bollard design depicted on the road plan does not match the bollard design depicted on the
initial site plan (SDP201300026).They should match. 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.
8. [Comment] On sheet 1, the signature line for the Approval by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors is
provided; however, the Agent does not sign road plans. It may be appropriate to take this signature line off
of the road plan.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Division of Current Development by using oerezkalbemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
2
RWSA has reviewed the 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" waterline 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
.c i$
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
September 30, 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 and utility plan for Lochlyn Hill Phase IA and IB dated June 24,
2013 with revisions dated 9111113 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following
comments:
1. A previous review comment requested that the proposed sidewalk along Vegas Court be
connected to the existing sidewalk along Vegas Court. Per 24VAC30- 92- 120.I.1, "In all
developments with pedestrian accommodations, such accommodations shall connect with
existing pedestrian accommodations and allow for connection to future pedestrian
accommodations *to adjacent parcels." On Sheet 3, it appears that the proposed sidewalk
will be located within existing right -of -way and that there is adequate right -of -way
available around the cul -de -sac to continue the sidewalk to the existing sidewalk.
2. A previous review comment requested that the alignment of the storm sewer from
structure 26B to structure 26 to structure 24 be rerouted so that the storm sewer would
run from structure 26B to structure 24. The least amount of separation storm sewer and
the existing appears to occur at structure 26B and appears to be approximately 5' as
scaled from the plan view on Sheet 5. Any storm sewer run from structure 26B to
structure 24 would in separation as the proposed road curves away from the waterline. It
appears that structure 26B could be moved to the east such that it is just east of structure
26. The storm sewer could then run from structure 26 to structure 26B perpendicularly to
structure 24.
3. A previous review comment requested that manhole 6 should be located on the opposite
side of Pen Park Lane so that the lateral crossing for lot 7 is more perpendicular. The
area suggested for manhole 6 is located within an existing gravel driveway that is to be
removed as shown on Sheets 2 and 13. The tree on Lots 7 and 8 to be preserved would
be approximately 80 to 90 feet from the proposed location and would likely be impact
more by the installation of the storm sewer from structure 20 to structure 18.
4. On Sheet 5, it appears that storm pipe 19 is to be radial. This pipe should be run straight
from structure 20 to structure 18.
5. A previous review comment requested that the storm sewer between structures 18F and
18B be rerouted so that the storm sewer is located within the proposed right -of -way.
With the current alignment proposed, VDOT would not maintain the storm sewer located
within the proposed easement. It appears that the storm sewer could be realigned along
the road with the installation of 2 storm manholes. It appears that this could be
accomplished while maintaining a slope of at least 0.450o and on average 0.500o. If the
storm sewer were rerouted in this fashion, it appears that one of the storm manholes
would be slightly over 12' in depth and the other approximately 10' in depth. Another
alternative would be to provide a temporary discharge for structure 18F and extend the
storm sewer to the east along Pen Park Lane as the area develops.
6. On Sheet 12, the top of storm structure 18H is shown to be above the back of curb
graphically.
7. On Sheet 12, storm structure 18F does not meet the minimum height requirement as
identified in the Road and Bridge Standards.
If we you need additional information concerning this project or think it beneficial to meet to
discuss these comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
10/7/13
RWSA Lochlyn Hill -Phase 1A 1B Road Utility Plan.htm
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 8:27 AM
To: Max Greene
Subject: FW: Lochlyn Hill - Phase 1A & 1B Road & Utility Plan
RWSA's comments on the road plan.
Christopher P. Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development lCounty of Albemarle, Virginia
401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext. 3443
From: Victoria Fort [mailtowfort(cbrivanna.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 7:47 PM
To: 'Scott Collins' ( scott(&collins- engineering.com)
Cc: Michael Vieira (mvieira @serviceauthority.org) (mvieira @serviceauthority.org); Christopher Perez;
stakeme @charlottesville.orq
Subject: Lochlyn Hill - Phase 1A & 113 Road & Utility Plan
Scott,
RWSA has reviewed the Lochlyn Hill Phase 1A & 113 Road & Utility Plan, dated 9/11/2013, and has the following
comments:
Sheets 4 & 5:
1. The utility and grading plans show four crossings of the 18" RWSA waterline by proposed storm sewer
lines (26A, 25, 23, & 18G). In order to minimize the number of crossings (and subsequently, the
number of required test pits and potential separation conflicts), can minor changes be made to the
storm sewer design? For example, connecting structures 24 and 26A would eliminate two water line
crossings. 26 and 20 could be connected to pick up the flow from structures 26 to 27.
General Comments:
The RWSA Board of Directors reached a resolution on the wholesale water metering program at its September
meeting. The Board approved a wholesale water metering program which will require meters on all main -to-
main interconnections between City and RWSA infrastructure as well as main -to -main interconnections
between ACSA and City infrastructure. As we have discussed in previous meetings, the developerwill be
responsible for metering any new connections that fit the above criteria.
RWSA will provide specific guidelines as to the types and sizes of meters that will be required, but for
example, an 8" x 8" City to County connection will likely require a 6" mag meter. Meter vaults for meters of
this size can be quite large (a 4" meter requires a vault that is 12' x 6' x 5'), so please account for this as you
update the Lochlyn Hill Utility Master Plan, the Phase IA & 1B Road & Utility Plan, and the utility plans for each
subsequent phase of development. I will be in touch as soon as I have more specific details.
The Board Report for the Discussion on the Wholesale Metering Study can be found at the following location:
http://www.rivanna.oria/documents/agendas/aizenda sep24 2013 doc7d.pdf
Minutes from the September meeting will be posted on the RWSA website as soon as they are approved at
file:// cob- dts01/ CityViewLnWDocs /2013/SUB/SUB201300092- Lochlyn Hill, Phase 1A & 1B Road Plan/RWSA Lochlyn Hill -Phase 1A 1B Road Utility Plan.htm 1/2
10/7/13 RWSA Lochlyn Hill -Phase 1A 1B Road Utility Plan.htm
the October Board Meeting.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns at this time. I will follow up with additional
information when it becomes available.
Best,
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
file:// cob- dts01/ City/ iewt -nWDocs /2013/SUB/SUB201300092- Lochlyn Hill, Phase 1A & 113 Road Plan/RWSA Lochlyn Hill - Phase 1A 113 Road UtilityPlan.htm 2/2
i"
,. `IRGINZP
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: Lochlyn Hills Phase IA & 113 Road Plans SUB201300092
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [scott @collins- engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: MEADOWCREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC [fax unknown]
Plan received date: 13 September 2013
Date of comments: 07 October 2013
Reviewer: Max Greene
The Road Plans (SUB201300092) submitted 13 September 2013 have received
Engineering Review and do not appear to meet all agencies minimum checklist items for
approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval:
1. Road and drainage plans (SUB201300092)
a. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded when received.
[DM905]
2. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan
a. Please submit approval letter from the City of Charlottesville and/or DEQ for this
project. Approval of WPO plans required prior to final road plan approvals.
3. Erosion Control Plan
a. Please submit approval letter from the City of Charlottesville and/or DEQ for this
project. Approval of WPO plans required prior to final road plan approvals.
4. RWSA:
RWSA has reviewed the Lochlyn Hill Phase IA & 113 Road & Utility Plan, dated
9/11/2013, and has the following comments:
Sheets 4 & 5:
a. The utility and grading plans show four crossings of the 18" RWSA waterline by
proposed storm sewer lines (26A, 25, 23, & 18G). In order to minimize the
number of crossings (and subsequently, the number of required test pits and
potential separation conflicts), can minor changes be made to the storm sewer
design? For example, connecting structures 24 and 26A would eliminate two
water line crossings. 26 and 20 could be connected to pick up the flow from
structures 26 to 27.
5. ACSA:
The above referenced plan is under construction review by ACSA staff. I will
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
advise in writing when approval is granted. Thank you.
Alexander I Morrison, EIT
Civil Engineer
f -d.� r,
Service Auth4rit
6. Fire and Rescue:
a. No Objection
Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and
narratives to Current Development Engineering along with the required review fee and transmittal form.
All other departments /agencies may be contacted directly for plan submittal requirements.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3283 or email m ,-reene @albemarle.orc to
schedule an appointment.
[17- 204.f] An application for an erosion and sediment control plan that requires modifications, terms, or conditions to be
included in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the
omitted modifications, terms or conditions within six (6) months after the owner is informed of the omitted information as
provided under paragraph (B).
File: CDDE1_03 Oct 2013_MRG_Lochlyn Hills Phase I & 1B Road Plans.doc
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Max Greene
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: October 16, 2013
Subject: SUB 2013— 00092 Lochlyn Hill — Phase lA and 1B Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
[14- 410(D), 14- 302(A)9 and 4.6.41 The required and approved L- turnaround design of the 20' Private Alley
Easement has been omitted on the revised road plan. While the approved preliminary subdivision plat for
Phase IA (SUB201300028) did not contain a turn around on these lots, during the review and approval of
the Initial Site Plan for Phase IB this item came to be required. Revise alley easement to provide the
approved L- turnaround OR provide an acceptable /approvable turnaround design which Engineer and Fire &
Rescue signs off on.
2. [Condition of Approval for Preliminary Plat] As proposed the realignment of Pen Park Lane will require
alterations in existing access for TMP 61A -19, 20, 21, 22, and 23A. As such this may require access
easements to be provided to those owners across Lochlyn Hills property OR boundary line adjustments to
transfer the excess land to those owners. Depending on the solution to the above this may also require
offsite construction easements to construct the modified driveways on the above properties. Per the
applicant, they are working with VDOT and individual lot owners on this issue and the final plat will
reflect additional r/w or transfer of the property to the lot owners. Prior to Final Plat approval this issue
shall be resolved and approved by VDOT and the County.
As proposed it does not appear that the above mentioned issue has been addressed, rather on the road plan
there is a portion of land labeled as "Public Access Easement" which appears to create an island in the
middle of Pen Park Lane; however on the recently reviewed final plat this land is labeled as "Common Area
Open Space 2 ". Please clarify.
3. [32.5.2(n) and 4.12.16(d) ] Parallel parking along Lochlyn Hill Drive shall be a minimum dimension of 9
feet wide and 20 feet long. The road plan depicts these spaces as 7'x20'; however, this does not meet the
requirements of the ordinance. Revise.
4. [Comment] This 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.
[Condition of Approval for Initial Site Plan and 32.7.9.7(a2) &(e)] Screening. The required screening for
the adjoining residential lots directly behind the townhomes off - street parking area has been provided on
sheet 13; however, it appears that the residential properties (Lot 19 and 21) which are at the end of the paved
turn around do not have any screening from the townhomes parking area. Revise landscaping plan to
provide the required screening to these lots by extending the double staggered row of dragon lady hollies to
conceal the townhome parking area from Lots 19 and 21.
6. [Comment] On sheet 1, the signature line for the Approval by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors is
provided; however, the Agent does not sign road plans. It may be appropriate to take this signature line off
of the road plan.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Division of Current Development by using cperezkalbemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
Albemarle County
Service Authority
Serving ♦ Conserving
November 1. 2013
Graham Murray, P.E.
Collins Engineering
200 Garrett Street Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Lochlyn Hill- Phase 1A & 1B, Road & Utility Plan
Dear Mr. Murray:
The plan, entitled Lochlyn Hill- Phase 1A & 1B, Road & Utility Plan dated June 24,
2013, last revised, October 31, 2013, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the
approved plan is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided
with this approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer
Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does
not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and
specifications.
The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job site.
The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction plan
showing as -built information and provide this data to your client at the completion of utility
installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy and
one mylar copy.
A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to
ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the
project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please
have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting.
This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not
in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void.
The contractor shall be responsible to comply with the no -lead regulation regarding
brass fittings that is effective on January 4, 2014 (Senate Bill 3874 which amends the Safe
Drinking Water Act).
(The pressure for water may exceed 80 psi at some meter locations)
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at
(434) 977 -4511.
Sincerely,
—W4/L"V—�
MichAel Vieira, PE
Civil Engineer
MV /dt
cc: Meadowcreek Development, LLC
ACSA, Alexander J. Morrison
State Health Department
Va. DEQ
Current Development, Bill Fritz
Bldg. Codes & Zoning Services
Soil Erosion Inspector
050601 Lochlyn Hill Engineer Approval Letter 110413
�'IRGINIP
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Max Greene
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: Oeto er- 16, 204-3
Subject: SUB 2013— 00092 Lochlyn Hill — Phase IA and 113 Road Plans
NOTES FROM 10 -29 -13 SCOTT COLLINS MEETING AND FOLLOWUP DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNTY
ATTORNEY AND CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE.
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [14- 410(D), 14- 302(A)9 and 4.6.41 The required and approved L- turnaround design of the 20' Private Alley
Easement has been omitted on the revised road plan. While the approved preliminary subdivision plat for
Phase IA (SUB201300028) did not contain a turn around on these lots, during the review and approval of
the Initial Site Plan for Phase IB this item came to be required. Revise alley easement to provide the
approved L- turnaround OR provide an acceptable /approvable turnaround design which Engineer and Fire &
Rescue signs off on. During the meeting it was discussed that the alley is going away and will likely not
happen in the future. They plan to leave this area as "future development" and work it out later. Staff
advised the applicant that if the alley eventually gets redesigned back into the project that it will likely cause
trouble for the lots being subdivided on the final plat be it will alter their setbacks. The applicant stated that
they do not believe the alley will be left in the project. Future implications if the alley is redesigned back
into the project as currently proposed: setbacks for lots 20, 19, and 21 will need to be revised to
accommodate the alley and the required turn around. Future implications if the alley is omitted from the
project: the townhomes parking and access will need to be redesigned.
2. [Condition of Approval for Preliminary Plat] As proposed the realignment of Pen Park Lane will require
alterations in existing access for TMP 61A -19, 20, 21, 22, and 23A. As such this may require access
easements to be provided to those owners across Lochlyn Hills property OR boundary line adjustments to
transfer the excess land to those owners. Depending on the solution to the above this may also require
offsite construction easements to construct the modified driveways on the above properties. Per the
applicant, they are working with VDOT and individual lot owners on this issue and the final plat will
reflect additional r/w or transfer of the property to the lot owners. Prior to Final Plat approval this issue
shall be resolved and approved by VDOT and the County.
As proposed it does not appear that the above mentioned issue has been addressed, rather on the road plan
there is a portion of land labeled as "Public Access Easement" which appears to create an island in the
middle of Pen Park Lane; however on the recently reviewed final plat this land is labeled as "Common Area
Open Space 2 ". Please clarify. The applicant explained that the right of way easement was in a county /city
ownership. Being that the applicant does not own it, nor does VDOT, they cannot give the land to the
adjacent owners be its not theirs to give. They have agreed to extend the driveways of the applicable owners
over the right of way easement to provide access to the relocated right of way. Staff pointed out that there is
a portion of driveway which goes over Lochlyn Hills property which will require a driveway easement be
set to record (61A -21 and 61A -20). The above was discussed with the applicant.
Following the meeting staff researched the easement further and discussed the unresolved situation
with the County Attorney's office. Below are some of the items which need to be resolved with this
situation prior to approval of the road plan and final plat:
1) Is the City owned r/w easement owned fee simple? If not who owns the land under the easement?
Regardless the owners of this easement and property need to be party to what happens with it. Thus Frank
Stoner or the applicant shall work with the City and the County on this easement issue and how to resolve it.
Please provide planning staff the deeds /plats associated with the City owned right of way easement,
specifically Deed Book 318 Page 467 and Deed Book 175 Page 191 and Deed Book 628 Page 599 (plat).
2) What is the City's position on the driveways of TMP 61A -22, 61A -21, 61A -20, 61A -19 being extended
over the city's r/w easement?
3) Regardless of the above: if the r/w easement is to be vacated, City Council will be required to approve the
vacation. Or if the applicant chooses not to vacate it with this phase then easements will need to be granted
by the City Council to extend the driveways over the r/w easement (depending on how the deed of Deed
Book 318 Page 467 and Deed Book 175 Page 191 read — do they give ultimate permission).
4) The owners of TMP 61A -21 and 61A -20 need to give permission to have their entrance to their properties
combined. This will need to be done on a plat which depicts the shared driveway easement for these two lots
and there shall be a shared maintenance agreement for the shared driveway. These owners will need to sign
the plat and deed work.
3. [32.5.2(n) and 4.12.16(d) ] Parallel parking along Lochlyn Hill Drive shall be a minimum dimension of 9
feet wide and 20 feet long. The road plan depicts these spaces as 7'x20'; however, this does not meet the
requirements of the ordinance. Revise. Staff discussed the comment and the applicant agreed to make the
required changes.
4. [Comment] This 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. Staff discussed this issue with the applicant and it's been said that bonding will occur with both the
City and the County.
Following the meeting staff contacted the City of Charlottesville, specifically Mike Smith Neighborhood
Planner (phone # 970 - 3453). He states that the City has not received a road plan for review of the portion of
proposed road in the City. As previously discussed the City should be involved in the review of the road
plan, to include improvements on Pen Park Lane which were subject of proffers from City rezoning.
5. [Condition of Approval for Initial Site Plan and 32.7.9.7(a2) &(e)] Screening. The required screening for
the adjoining residential lots directly behind the townhomes off - street parking area has been provided on
sheet 13; however, it appears that the residential properties (Lot 19 and 21) which are at the end of the paved
2
turn around do not have any screening from the townhomes parking area. Revise landscaping plan to
provide the required screening to these lots by extending the double staggered row of dragon lady hollies to
conceal the townhome parking area from Lots 19 and 21. The applicant and staff discussed this
comment... being they are getting rid of the alley, the screening of the alley is no longer applicable. If the
alley is redesigned into the project, on the site plan they will be required to put the required plantings in.
The applicant made note of this and said he'd put a landscaping easement over the section of land where the
trees would go if the alley was ever back in play.
6. [Comment] On sheet 1, the signature line for the Approval by the Agent for the Board of Supervisors is
provided; however, the Agent does not sign road plans. It may be appropriate to take this signature line off
of the road plan.
NEW COMMENT
7. Per discussions with the applicant the existing road/concrete within the City owned easement fronting TMP
61A -22, 61A -21, 61A -20, 61A -19 will be ripped up and returned back to grass. However this activity is not
currently shown on the road plan. The road plan should be revised to show this activity. Also, offsite
construction easements will need to be granted prior to this activity taking place.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Division of Current Development by using ccperezkalbemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
December 10, 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 & IB
Dear Mr. Greene:
We have reviewed the road and utility plan for Lochlyn Hill, Phase IA & IB dated 6124113 with
revisions dated 9111113, 9125113, 10131113, 11114113, and 12/10/13 and offer the following
comments:
1. Revisions dated 12/10/13 are for sheets 12 and 13. The revisions on sheet 12 label the
"To Structure" for the invert ins of structure 24 on the storm sewer profiles. The
revisions on sheet 13 have revised the landscaping plan so that the street trees are spaced
in accordance with Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual at the intersection of Pen
Park Lane and Lochlyn Hill Lane. Two signed copies of each of these revised sheets
need to be provided to this office.
2. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
Subject to the above comments, the road and utility plan for Lochlyn Hill, Phase IA and IB have
been found to be in compliance with VDOT standards and specifications and we have no
objection to the plans as submitted. At least 48 hours prior to construction beginning, this office
needs to be contacted for a preconstruction conference. In addition, at least 48 hour notification
shall be provided to this office prior to any requested inspection. 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
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Max Greene
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: December 18, 2013
Subject: SUB 2013— 00092 Lochlyn Hill — Phase 1 and 1B Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [COMMENT /OBSERVATION] The proposed alley, turnaround and landscaping behind the future
townhomes lots has been omitted on the revised road plan. Also, the alley design/typical street section for
the alley has been omitted from the road plans. Thus the 20' alley easement behind the future townhomes
and the landscape screening is not subject of the road plan rather it shall be reviewed at the final site plan for
the future townhome lots.
As previously discussed the alley turnaround design is dictated by Section 32.7.2.2c:
c. Turnarounds. All turnarounds shall have a turning radius required by the standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. In the case of any private street, the agent may require that at least one sign
of a type approved by the county engineer be posted giving notice that the street is not a through street.
If the applicant seeks an alternative standard other than that of VDOT, then a waiver request shall be
submitted and processed. As previously discussed using Section 32.3.5(b), the agent can approve a waiver
or variation of any section in 32.7. The variation shall be processed under Section 32.3.5b(2), through
consultation with the County engineer to determine if the turnaround "satisfies the overall purposes of this
chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the requirement.... "
Be advised that postponing all review of the alley and turnaround till the final site plan stage of the
townhomes, may cause issues to arise if the waiver is not granted, as the setback locations for lots affected
by turnaround currently lots 14, 19, and 21 are being plated with the final plat SUB2013 -136.
2. [COMMENT /OBSERVATION] In concert with the above comment /observation, the layout of the alley
and turnaround as depicted through setback locations on the road plan does not match that of what is
depicted on the final subdivision plat for the 20' Alley Easement. Please be advised the road plan does not
dictate setbacks, but to avoid confusion, if shown on the road plan, they shall match the final plat.
3. [COMMENT] On sheet 3, to avoid confusion and assure side yard setback classification on the final plat
for Lot 20, the "30' Access Easement" shall be relabeled to match the label on the final subdivision plat:
"30' Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Emergency Access Easement". Revise.
4. [COMMENT] On Sheet 6, to avoid confusion, the typical street section for the "Emergency Access/
Pedestrian Access Travelway (30' Private Access Easement) " shall be relabeled to match the final
subdivision plat: "30' Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Emergency Access Easement" and "30' Alley Easement ".
(If) these two easements are not to utilize the same typical street section, on the road plan provide a typical
street section for the "30' Alley Easement. "
[COMMENT] On sheet 3 it appears the note for the two 10' strips of property outside the proposed VDOT
right of way are mislabeled as "Owned by the City of Charlottesville and Shall be Dedicated to Public
Use. " Per discussions from the November 27, 2013 meeting with the owner and surveying team, and the
recently resubmitted Final Plat (SUB2013 -136), and the recently submitted Dedication Plat for Parcels Y
and Z (SUB2013 -185) it appears that the above statements of ownership and dedication are not accurate.
Notably it does not appear that the City owns the two 10' strips of land, nor is the upper 10' strip, or the
lower portion 10' strip outside the VDOT right of way (which is a part of Common Area open Space 2) to
be dedicated to public use as this time. Revise the note appropriately.
6. [COMMENT] On sheet 3 it appears the note for a portion of the 20' strip owned by the City which is
outside the proposed VDOT right of way is mislabeled as "...and Shall be Dedicated to Public Use. " Per
discussions from the November 27, 2013 meeting with the owner and surveying team, and the recently
resubmitted Final Plat (SUB2013 -136), and the recently submitted Dedication Plat for Parcels Y and Z
(SUB2013 -185) it appears that the above statements of dedication are not accurate. Rather this note appears
to be more appropriate for Parcel Y and Z, if that was the intent please revise the arrows of the note to point
only to Parcels Y and Z. Revise appropriately.
7. [Comment] Per discussions from the November 27, 2013 meeting with the owner and surveying team
Planning staff has prepared and sent out letters to all four (4) property owners who's entrances are affected
by the proposed realignment to assure all parties are in agreeance with the changes to their driveways. All
owners and applicants have been CCed to this letter. This letter was sent out upon receipt of the required
plats for right of way dedication of parcel Y and Z (SUB2013 -185), and upon receipt of the revised final
plat (SUB2013 -136). No action is required to be taken by the applicant with regard to this comment; it is for
informational purposes only.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Division of Current Development by using oerezkalbemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
2
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Max Greene
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: December 18, 2013
Subject: SUB 2013— 00092 Lochlyn Hill — Phase 1 and 1B Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further
review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [COMMENT /OBSERVATION] The proposed alley, turnaround and landscaping behind the future
townhomes lots has been omitted on the revised road plan. Also, the alley design/typical street section for
the alley has been omitted from the road plans. Thus the 20' alley easement behind the future townhomes
and the landscape screening is not subject of the road plan rather it shall be reviewed at the final site plan for
the future townhome lots.
As previously discussed the alley turnaround design is dictated by Section 32.7.2.2c:
c. Turnarounds. All turnarounds shall have a turning radius required by the standards of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. In the case of any private street, the agent may require that at least one sign
of a type approved by the county engineer be posted giving notice that the street is not a through street.
If the applicant seeks an alternative standard other than that of VDOT, then a waiver request shall be
submitted and processed. As previously discussed using Section 32.3.5(b), the agent can approve a waiver
or variation of any section in 32.7. The variation shall be processed under Section 32.3.5b(2), through
consultation with the County engineer to determine if the turnaround "satisfies the overall purposes of this
chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding the desired effects of the requirement.... "
Be advised that postponing all review of the alley and turnaround till the final site plan stage of the
townhomes, may cause issues to arise if the waiver is not granted, as the setback locations for lots affected
by turnaround currently lots 14, 19, and 21 are being plated with the final plat SUB2013 -136.
2. [COMMENT /OBSERVATION] In concert with the above comment /observation, the layout of the alley
and turnaround as depicted through setback locations on the road plan does not match that of what is
depicted on the final subdivision plat for the 20' Alley Easement. Please be advised the road plan does not
dictate setbacks, but to avoid confusion, if shown on the road plan, they shall match the final plat.
3. [COMMENT] On sheet 3, to avoid confusion and assure side yard setback classification on the final plat
for Lot 20, the "30' Access Easement" shall be relabeled to match the label on the final subdivision plat:
"30' Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Emergency Access Easement". Revise.
4. [COMMENT] On Sheet 6, to avoid confusion, the typical street section for the "Emergency Access/
Pedestrian Access Travelway (30' Private Access Easement) " shall be relabeled to match the final
subdivision plat: "30' Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Emergency Access Easement" and "30' Alley Easement ".
(If) these two easements are not to utilize the same typical street section, on the road plan provide a typical
street section for the "30' Alley Easement. "
[COMMENT] On sheet 3 it appears the note for the two 10' strips of property outside the proposed VDOT
right of way are mislabeled as "Owned by the City of Charlottesville and Shall be Dedicated to Public
Use. " Per discussions from the November 27, 2013 meeting with the owner and surveying team, and the
recently resubmitted Final Plat (SUB2013 -136), and the recently submitted Dedication Plat for Parcels Y
and Z (SUB2013 -185) it appears that the above statements of ownership and dedication are not accurate.
Notably it does not appear that the City owns the two 10' strips of land, nor is the upper 10' strip, or the
lower portion 10' strip outside the VDOT right of way (which is a part of Common Area open Space 2) to
be dedicated to public use as this time. Revise the note appropriately.
6. [COMMENT] On sheet 3 it appears the note for a portion of the 20' strip owned by the City which is
outside the proposed VDOT right of way is mislabeled as "...and Shall be Dedicated to Public Use. " Per
discussions from the November 27, 2013 meeting with the owner and surveying team, and the recently
resubmitted Final Plat (SUB2013 -136), and the recently submitted Dedication Plat for Parcels Y and Z
(SUB2013 -185) it appears that the above statements of dedication are not accurate. Rather this note appears
to be more appropriate for Parcel Y and Z, if that was the intent please revise the arrows of the note to point
only to Parcels Y and Z. Revise appropriately.
7. [Comment] Per discussions from the November 27, 2013 meeting with the owner and surveying team
Planning staff has prepared and sent out letters to all four (4) property owners who's entrances are affected
by the proposed realignment to assure all parties are in agreeance with the changes to their driveways. All
owners and applicants have been CCed to this letter. This letter was sent out upon receipt of the required
plats for right of way dedication of parcel Y and Z (SUB2013 -185), and upon receipt of the revised final
plat (SUB2013 -136). No action is required to be taken by the applicant with regard to this comment; it is for
informational purposes only.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez at the Division of Current Development by using oerezkalbemarle.org or
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
2
� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
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: Lochlyn Hills Phase IA & 113 Road Plans SUB201300092
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [scott @collins- engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: MEADOWCREEK DEVELOPMENT LLC [fax unknown]
Plan received date: 20 December 2013
Date of comments: 24 January 2014
Reviewer: Max Greene
Road Plans submitted 20 December 2013 have received Engineering Review. The road plans
appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for engineering approval. However,
two items are still outstanding:
1. Easements have not been recorded for Final approval at this time. Once the plats and
deeds have been recorded for the City of Charlottesville portion of the road, the deed
book and page numbers along with a copy of the recorded plat and deed will need to be
submitted for the County of Albemarle road files.
2. Water protection plans have not been approved by the City of Charlottesville. Once the
City of Charlottesville has approved the Water Protection plans, please submit
documentation of the City approval for the County of Albemarle files.
Once all required documents have been submitted and approved a road bond request form can be
processed, an estimate will be calculated and the owner of the property can then post the bond
amount for construction of the road.
File: Conditional Road Plan approval.doc