HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201500194 Review Comments 2016-01-27Short Review Comments Report for:
SUB201500194
SubApplication Type:
Green Loft Farm - Rural Preservation Development - Preliminary
Preliminary Plat
Date Completed:12/07/2015
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/16/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/02/2015
Reviewer:Shelly Plaster VDOT
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/04/2015
Reviewer:Scott Clark CDD Planning
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:11/10/2015
Reviewer:Andrew Slack CDD E911
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The road name of 'Greenloft Lane' is not an acceptable road name. The word 'Green' has been use
more than five (5) times to begin road names in Albemarle County. The applicant should contact this
office with a list of three (3) or more road names to be approved before final plats are submitted.
Division:
Date Completed:12/06/2015
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on plat dated 10-23-15.
No comments or objections
Division:
Date Completed:11/12/2015
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Final plat approval will require approved road plans and VSMP application.
Division:
Date Completed:12/30/2015
Reviewer:Megan Yaniglos CDD Planning
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:Applicant deferred application
Division:
Date Completed:01/27/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Final plat approval will require approved road plans and VSMP application.
Division:
Page:1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:January 05, 2017
Reviews Comments:Final plat approval will require approved road plans and VSMP application.
Page:2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On:January 05, 2017
1
,,...—_,
. ,,,...,
(-- -tof,s-i-)rz,/yyickg-t Q
4rnivii ---
1 ii1
a
'‘*1,-..lier
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Brian Ray
From: Megan Yaniglos- Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: December 8, 2015
Subject: SUB-2015-e Green Loft Farm-Rural Preservation Development- Preliminary
Subdivision Plat it144
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the
Final Plat referenced above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each
comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [14-302 (A)(4)] Private easements. Easements need to be established over the
stormwater management accessways. Deeds will be required to be submitted
and approved prior to final plat approval for all easements. Additionally, drainage
easements and drainage that is shown outfalling onto adjacent property will need
to be addressed in your Water Protection Ordinance submittal.
2. [14-309; 14-310] Soils information; Health Department approval. Soils work
should be submitted for review and approval from the Health Department.
3. This application will need to be scheduled for the Planning Commission, staff will
contact you when the date is set.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
1
'AL
MRCS rte
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Brian Ray
From: Megan Yaniglos- Principal Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: December 7, 2015
Subject: SUB - 2015 -94 Green Loft Farm -Rural Preservation Development- Preliminary
Subdivision Plat
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the
Final Plat referenced above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each
comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning
Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [14 -302 (A)(4)] Private easements. An easement needs to be established over
the stormwater management accessway. Deeds will be required to be submitted
and approved prior to final plat approval for all easements.
2. [14 -309; 14 -310] Soils information; Health Department approval. Soils work
should be submitted for review and approval from the Health Department.
3. This application will need to be scheduled for the Planning Commission, staff will
contact you when the date is set.
Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3004 for further information.
�� of A�
�'rRGltylA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176
To: Megan Yaniglos, AICP, Principal Planner
From: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Re: SUB201500194 Green Loft Farm — RPD Comments
Date: December 4, 2015
The standard comments on the Rural Preservation Development design standards and special provisions
are included below. In addition, I have the following comments on this proposal:
A "proposed low- impact detention facility" is shown on the proposed preservation tract. As the
conservation easement for the preservation tract will not permit grading or earth - moving activity
that materially alters the topography of the property or grading for improvements that are not
permitted on the tract itself, this facility should be moved off of the preservation tract.
10.3.3.2 INTENT; DESIGN STANDARDS (Added 11 -8 -89)
The rural preservation development option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of
the goals and objectives for the rural areas as set forth in the comprehensive plan than can be achieved
under conventional development. To this end, application for rural preservation development shall be
reviewed for:
a. Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
b. Water supply protection; and /or
c. Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources.
More specifically, in accordance with design standards of the comprehensive plan and where deemed
reasonably practical by the commission:
d. Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or unique agricultural or forestal soils
as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of
Agricultural Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the
Soil Conservation Service;
Out of 148.89 acres, the property has approximately 28.4 acres of prime and locally- important
soils. Approximately 14.5 acres of those soils (51 %) would be included in the preservation tract.
Given the distribution of important soils on the property, it would be impractical to develop the
property with significantly smaller impacts on important soils.
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope or flood plain and shall be
situated as far as possible from public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking
water supply impoundments;
There are no FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplains on the property, and the property is not
located in a Water Supply Protection Area.
The majority of critical slopes would be located on the preservation tract rather than on
development lots. The significant areas of critical slopes on lots 12, 13, and 14 could be protected
if the preservation tract wrapped around the south side of the development lots to include them.
This would technically violate standard (g) below, but the increase in resource protection could
offset that impact.
f. Development lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve historic and scenic settings
deemed to be of importance to the general public and natural resource areas whether such
features are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel;
The property is not within a historic district, and is not adjacent to any mapped historic resources.
g. Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and shall be situated so that no
portion of the rural preservation tract shall intrude between any development lots;
The proposal meets this criterion. However, the preservation tract would be larger and more
resources would be protected if the preservation tract continued through what is now marked as
lots 10 and 11 to include the slopes now included in lots 12, 13, and 14. Note that, if the lot layout
is amended in this manner, the portion linking Tract A to the area of slopes should be wide
enough to make access between the two areas practical — a narrow "pipestem" is not sufficient.
Staff requests that the applicant make this improvement to the design, but this is not a
requirement.
h. All development lots shall have access restricted to an internal street in accordance with Chapter
14 of the Code of Albemarle;
The proposal meets this criterion.
Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the commission to approve a rural
preservation development upon finding in a particular case that such proposal does not forward
the purposes of rural preservation development as set forth hereinabove and that the public
purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development.
Staff believes that the proposed rural preservation development is more appropriate than
conventional development.
10.3.3.3 SPECIAL PROVISIONS
In addition to design standards as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 and other regulation, the following special
provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development:
a. The maximum number of lots within a rural preservation development shall be the same as may
be achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10. 3.2 and other applicable law. Each rural
preservation tract shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to
application for rural preservation development, has been made subject to a conservation, open
space or other similar easement which restricts development on the parcel, the total number of
lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed the number available for
conventional development as limited by any such previously imposed easement or easements;
The proposal meets this criterion.
b. Section 10.3.3.3.a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than
twenty (20) development lots;
The proposal meets this criterion.
c. Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied to the entire
parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the parcel shall
not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and
section 10. 3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the director of current development and
zoning from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or
on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this provision; provided that, in
either case, the provisions of section 10. 3.3 shall be applicable;
The proposal meets this criterion.
d. The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway necessary to provide
access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six
(6) expressed in acres;
The area devoted to lots and roadways is 74.71 acres. Sixteen lots multiplied by six acres would
be 96 acres, so the proposal meets this criterion. Increasing the area in the preservation tract
would improve performance on this criterion and protect more resources.
e. No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The
director of current development and zoning may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation
tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as
setforth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3. c, as the case may be;
Only one preservation tract is requested.
f. No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically
permitted by the director of current development and zoning at time of establishment, not more
than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservation tract or development lot. No
rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed by
perpetual easement accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility
authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14
of the Code of Albemarle, the director of planning and community development shall serve as
agent for the board of supervisors to accept such easement. Thereafter; such easement may be
modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the grantees to the original agreement
The proposed preservation tract is larger than the 40 -acre minimum.
The applicant should submit the conservation- easement application form after the Planning
Commission approves the preliminary plat. Once that has been submitted, staff will have the
easement drafted and present the proposed easement to the two easement co- holders. The
approved, signed easement would need to be recorded at the same time as the final plat.
g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subject to the review and approval of
the director of current development and zoning.
ROGER W. RAY & ASSOC., IN .
1717-1B ALLIED STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903
TELEPHONE: (434) 293-3195
FAX NUMBER: (434) 293-4202
E-MAIL: RWRINC@earthlink.net
Brian S. Ray, LS Land Surveyors
Roger W. Ray, LS Land Planners
Megan Yaniglos January 18, 2016
Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SUB 201500194 Greenloft Farm Preliminary Plat
Dear Mrs. Yaniglos:
Please find seven copies of the revised Preliminary Plat for Greenloft Farm, one copy of the letter
requesting a private road and one copy of VDOT's "Warrants for right turn treatment". We have
revised the Plat based on your comments dated December 8, 2015. Please see
comments/responses to those below.
1. The proposed low-impact detention facility is now shown on a Special Lot instead of the
Preservation tract
2. We've elected to not try to revise the Preservation Tract to include the critical slopes on Lots
12, 13 & 14. We believe this would violate standard (g) from the Rural Preservation design
standards and would negatively affect Lots 10 & 11. A strip of land connecting the
Preservation Tract would narrow the buildable areas on Lots 10 & 11.
3. The applicant has chosen to pursue a private road rather than a public road. This will make
VDOT comments 1, 2, 5 & 7 non-applicable.
4. We have attached VDOT's "Warrants for right turn treatment" to show that turn lanes are not
required.
5. The entrance has been redesigned such that it now intersects the state roadway
perpendicularly.
6. The scale has been labeled on the sight line profiles.
7. The road name has been changes to "Private Road". The applicant will confirm an acceptable
name before final platting.
8. The Lot boundaries have been revised to go to the center of the private road. The Lot areas
have been revised to reflect this change.
9. Notes regarding the public road have been revised to reflect the change to a private road.
10.Setback lines have been corrected on Lots 9 and 10 such that they are defined by the
minimum lot width of 150'.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully,
Brian S. Ray, LS
F-97
1 GV l• �j y j r • % �x Y r z� � , ,
. r w
w 100 i' FULL WIDTH TURN LANE AND TAPER REQUIRED ,5
y 11 �> , ' . . a
o♦�. ,. ��
{ x
r r
LLI
ED r IRTAPER RQUE �� z> 6AA
ct
o
A _ 40
x a
0.
�. I'' NO TURN LANES
1
20
NI 1 9 ' OR TAPERS REQUIRED
(--
3 1�d 200 300 Oat? 5€0 600 700
0
PHV APPROACH TOTAL,VEHICLES PER HOUR
Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).
LEGEND
PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent)
Ar AST = Z'70
Adjustment for RigTurns 27° x /= 21./ a
For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and 30 V P'-I
PHV total < 300.
Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20
If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D
K = the percent ofAADT occurring in the peak hour
D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow
Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice.
When right turn facilitiesnewarren ted, see''igure -1 reign Iter .W
FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY)
Rev. 1/15
Virginia Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Division '
2014
Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume Estimates By Section of Route
Albemarle Maintenance Area
Route Length AADT QA 4Tire Bus Truck QC K QK Dir AAWDT QW Year
2Axle 3+Axle 1Trail 2Trail Factor Factor
Albemarle County
From Dead End
Miller Lake Rd 0.69 80 R NA NA 06/02/2009
Fmm: 0.69 MN Dead End
(�.��, Miller Lake Rd 1.21 90 R NA NA 06/02/2009
`` T"I 02-693 Stillhouse Creek Rd
mml Dead End I
0 Crown Orchard Rd 0.30 190 R NA NA 06/02/2009
'I 02-693 Stillhouse Creek Rd;Burnt Mountain Rd
02-692 Plank Rd I
696 Edge Valley Rd 2.90 120 R NA NA 07/17/2012
T"I 02-710 Taylors Gap Rd I
Dead End I
( j Sutherland Rd 1.97 150 R NA NA 08/12/2009
�� I US 29 Monacan Trail I
Fmm I 02-633 Heards Mountain Rd I
(,'- �, Hungrytown Rd 1.84 110 R NA NA 06/02/2009
`�' I Dead End I
Dead End I
699 Boaz Rd 1.30 110 R NA NA 06/02/2009
T' US 29 S,Monacan Trail
Fmm' US 29 N,Monacan Trail
Covesville Lane 0.10 40 R NA NA 06/26/2012
T"I 02-837 Coves School Lane
From Dead End I
Watts Farm Rd 0.40 110 R NA NA 06/04/2009
T"I 02-600 Watts Passage
FromI
Dead End I
421 Alberene Church Rd 0.37 60 R NA NA 06/28/2012
02-717 Secretarys Sand Rd I
Dead End I
0 Reservoir Rd 0.50 110 R NA NA 08/12/2009
0.50 ME Dead End tmm'.
Reservoir Rd 1.70 430 R NA NA 05/20/2009
2.20 ME Dead End
Fmm:
0 Reservoir Rd 0.15 1500 R NA NA 10/16/2012
02-820 Buckingham Circle t
GI Reservoir Rd 0.05 2200 R NA NA 10/18/2012
�T Tn I Bus US 29 I
02-715 Chestnut Grove Rd I
filp Pocket Lane 0.70 160 R NA NA 06/04/2009
Dead End I
Fmm:l Dead End I
0 Fortune Lane 1.50 140 R NA NA 06/02/2009
``��''
02-714 Riding Club Rd t
0 Fortune Lane 0.10 140 R NA NA 06/02/2009
''MM'' "I 02-715 Esmont Rd I
Cul-de-Sac I
0 Fieldcrest Dr 0.35 130 R NA NA 03/27/2012
I SR 20 Scottsville Rd I
m I 02-708 Red Hill Rd I
0 Dudley Mountain Rd 3.77 270 R NA NA 03/29/2012
02-631 Old Lynchburg Rd I
From 02-691 Jarmans Gap Rd I
Blair Park Rd 0.35 180 R NA NA 08/09/2012
T"I Dead End I
4/20/2015 34
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Vlrginla 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
December 2, 2015
Ms. Megan YanigIos
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2015 -00194 Green Loft Farm
Dear Ms. Yaniglos,
We have reviewed the Green Loft Farm Preliminary Plat, dated October 23, 2015, as submitted by Roger
W. Ray & Assoc., Inc. and we offer the following comments.
1. The typical road section should be labeled as "No Parking" since the pavement width has been
reduced to 20'.
2. The pavement section will be reviewed in the road plan submittal.
3. Turn lane warrants should be provided.
4. The entrance centerline should be perpendicular to the state highway centerline unless a
significant physical constraint exists.
5. In accordance with the Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR) the development
shall have at least 2 external connections. The additional connection may be the construction of a
stub -out for a future connection. The stub -out should be built to the property line.
5. The scale of the line of sight profile should be provided.
7. Additional comments, concerning the road design, drainage etc., will be generated during the
road plan review.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9894.
Sincerely,
Shelly A. plaster
Land Development Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Megan Yaniglos
From: Rachel Horsley<teatime.rdh@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 9:27 PM
To: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: Green Loft Farm Concerns
Dear Megan,
We appreciate your time last Wednesday in answering questions we had about the proposed Green Loft Farm Rural Preservation
Development. As suggested,since we are out of town December 8 and 10,here are our concerns in writing.
We have lived at the some location on Dudley Mountain Road since 1980 and have seen many changes. The proposed development is the
largest. We are afraid that it will change the rural character of Dudley Mountain Road to a suburban one.
Our short history of this particular piece of property is that Colonel William Wright was an excellent stewart of the land,preserving the woods
and allowing his neighbors to hike and hunt it. He informed his tenant(he lived in NOVA)and other neighbors that he would be putting the land
into a conservancy. So it is unfortunate that he died before he could act on his stated wishes,and that this previously forested land has been
clear cut and is now being developed.
Here are our comments:
• We don't think the land will perk enough to support 17 septic systems.
• Potential water run-off onto our property as the eco-system is tampered with.
• Increased traffic on Dudley Mtn Rd. This is a bicycle route and we,as well as other neighbors,run,bike,and walk on the road—there
are no sidewalks. At a minimum,32 additional vehicles would be would be using the road which would likely make it unsafe for these
healthy recreational activities.
• Night light pollution
• The size and location of the development—building all the houses to the front of the property creates a suburban area in a rural part
of the county.
We understand the owner has his rights but we would urge the county to consider this rural preservation development carefully. We believe the
rural character of Dudley Mountain Mountain Road would be better retained with the By-Right Plan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Rachel Horsley
Daniel Hassell
2351 Dudley Mtn Rd
North Garden VA 22959
434-296-3305
1