The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP202000062 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2020-12-11� AI ?"h �IRGRTF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Site Plan review Project: DS Tavern (Sim Geff6trueftign Deetimen) — Minor Amendment (MIA) Plan preparer: Jonathan Garber, PE / Lineage Architects P. O. Box 991, Verona, VA 24482 igarber(a lineagearch.com Owner or rep.: Ivy Road RE LLC — 800 E. Canal Street, Ste 1900 Richmond, VA 23219 Plan received date: 2 Oct 2020 (Rev. 1) 11 Dec 2020 Date of comments: 9 Oct 2020 (Rev. 1) 11Dec 2020 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos SDP2020-00062 If comment grayscale, comment is addressed with Rev. 1. 2 items requirefollow- u : 4, 13.f. 1. C-01 a. Revise plan title to include SDP202000062. Recommend revise plan title to Minor Site Plan Amendment, not Site Construction Documents. b. Note that begins `Jon Garber is the Certified Land Disturber' should be deleted. c. Note: Tier III Groundwater Assessment (GWA) report has been submitted and is under review by Engineering. GWA report must be approved prior to Minor Site Plan Amendment approval. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Engineering review of Tier III GWA yielded errant comments, items La.-d., sent to Applicant after 9-Oct SDP review comments. Tier III GWA comments withdrawn via email, 10/27/2020 9:59 AM. Tier III GWA report d. 9/17/20 will be marked approved, 10/27/20 and copy placed in file management system, CityView (CV). 2. Note: C-05 A: E&SC Narrative, Project Description, estimates `total disturbed area associated with this project is approximately 0.19 acres with all treated by use of silt fence.' Related to LOD estimate: a. 0.19 Ac. land disturbance z8,276 ft2. b. DS Tavern is not part of a plan of common development. c. Given 2.a./b., DS Tavern Minor (Site Plan) Amendment (MIA) is not subject to the VESCP. (code Sec. 17-300) Additional comments elsewhere discuss E&SC measures, notes, etc., and stream (with buffer) that transits property. d. Project is not subject to VSMP requirements, since LOD = 0.19 Ac. land disturbance (see 17-302). e. Since VESCP and VSMP requirements do not apply, neither do requirements at Ch. 17, Article VI, Stream Buffers. See code Sec. 17-600, lead paragraph (applicability). f. Albemarle is attentive to any increase in estimated area of land disturbance. 10,OOOsq.ft. threshold triggers VESCP and VSMP requirements, which in turn trigger stream buffer limits on development, and mitigation requirements. 3. At 0.19 Ac. LOD, VESCP /VSMP program and stream buffer avoidance /mitigation requirements do not apply. Engineering recommends text at item 2. above be copied verbatim to Minor Amendment title sheet. 4. Note: A slight increase in land disturbance is possible without exceeding 10,000sq.ft. threshold. The upper limit before multiple VESCP, VSMP, and stream buffer requirements come into play is just under 0.23 Ac. (Rev. 1) Asfollow-up: Please revise C 01 Notes beneath Vicinity Map, consistent with item 4 comment Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 response (12/10/20 letter) that indicates LOD =9,828 SF — 0.22 Ac., rather than 8,276 SF — 0.19 Ac. Also /minor: Recommend revise Note c. to read `Given a./b., DS Tavern... ' 5. Note: Should stream buffer requirements apply to a revised submittal, then given ex. grade, ex. structures /parking, and considering type /location of proposed bldg. additions, terrace, and parking, proposed improvements lie within the landward 50' of stream buffer. Engineering is of the opinion that proposed elements within the most landward 50' horizontal feet of the stream buffer qualify as improvements that may (would) be allowed in the stream buffer by the program authority. Please be mindful of: a. Any increase in estimated area of land disturbance, recommend limit to less than 10,000sq.ft. b. Locating structures, improvements, or activities within 50' of stream centerline, which cannot be approved (should buffer requirements apply). Note, however, buffer requirements do not apply. c. To clarify: VESCP, VSMP, stream buffer requirements do not apply to current design proposal. Minor Amendment. C-04: improvements. blue -circled [ Image removed with Rev. 1 comments. ] 6. Note: Applicant may remove reference to ESC plan, narrative, VESCH detail /E&SC plan legend, Certified Land Disturber, etc. provided final design zarea of land disturbance is less than 10,000sq.ft. 7. If Minor Amendment (MIA) retains ESC measures, narrative, details, etc., these elements may become binding with the approved site plan amendment. While Engineering encourages silt fence, ordinance does not mandate any VESCP measures for this project in proposed design configuration with LOD —0.19 Ac. (Rev. 1) Applicant response (12/10/20 letter): `... Engineer agrees with use of silt fence on a project regardless of scale and as such silt fence has been retained.' 8. MIA should retain all reference labels and linework that show/indicate stream buffer on parcel/s under development. With slight increase in estimated LOD, stream buffer requirements may apply. 9. CO3: Retain line -type reference to critical slopes, and please revise steep slope overlay label/s to read critical slopes. 10. 18-4.2, Critical slopes, requirements apply to design. a. 18-4.2.3 explains improvements shown on a site plan shall not be located on critical slopes. b. CO3 shows a proposed stone retaining wall (max. height: 3.00') on critical slopes. c. Coordinate critical slope modification or waiver with Site Plan review coordinator. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 11. US Rt. 250 right-of-way (ROW) a. Label ROW (linework) across parcels under development (bearing -distance course pelow). �.... 4Dn �....,,...... b. Note: A VDOT Land Use permit is required for work within public right-of-way. c. VDOT must approve entrance geometry and improvements within public right-of-way. d. CO3: Transfer sight distance lines that overlay photo to graphic portion of ex. conditions sheet. e. Provide (vertical) sight distance profile at Ivy Road to ensure adequate vertical sight distance at site entrance, for drivers entering onto Rt. 250, 12. C-03 a. Revise contour labels consistent with actual elevations. See GIS image, above. Elevation across site varies 520'-564'. b. General Note 6: Provide date of `current field survey.' ESP checklist for plan reviewers requires topography be at least visually field verified by the designer within the last year. c. Label TMP 05900-00-00-015A1 if any development is proposed to occur on this parcel, and provide deed bk.-pg. ownership information for this parcel. 13. C-04 a. Label stone retaining wall, and max. wall height. b. Note: Retaining wall ht. >3' requires a building permit, and safety railing. Retaining wall In. >4' requires (PE -)sealed geotechnical design. c. Recommend spot elevations on C04 supplement direction of proposed flow shown on C05 (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Noted.' d. Label proposed parking area curb radii. e. Label CG-6 curbing. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `The proposed design referenced in Minor Amendment 08-18-20 called for CG-2 curbing. However, no curbing has been labeled as the design team has requested that the requirement for curb and gutter as established by 18-4.12.15.(g) be waived. Figures for pre -development impervious drive materials have been listed on C-03, and post -development figures have been listed on C-04 for comparison. Each separate surface material has been labeled for further clarification.' Via email sent 11/23/2020 8:42 AM, Engineering supports applicant waiver request for curb and gutter waiver, and appreciates pre - /post -development impervious drive area figures, 3846.5 SF and 5607.8 SF, respectively. f. Label walkway widths. (Rev. 1) As follow-up: Engineering requires sidewalk width =5.0, Min. Please revise brick paver walkway width to 5' Min. (Unaware of waiver process for narrower walkway width, Engineering recognizes this minimum helps ensure adequate width for patrons who may require this minimum width to safely navigate, or to pass oncoming pedestrians.) g. Label site entrance width (narrowest point). h. Label entrance (curve) radii at intersection with US Rt. 250. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 14. C-05 a. As noted above, VESCP requirements do not apply but grading needs to be shown with this MIA. b. Proposed grading on this Grading/E&SC Plan is ambiguous. Conventional heavier or darker line - type is not apparent. If grading is proposed, indicate via narrative, or notes. If grade change > IF is proposed, provide distinct line -type easily identifiable as proposed grade change. c. `Limit of Construction' labels on this sheet do not correspond with distinct LOD line -type. All 3 labels float in space. Please provide easily distinguishable `Limits of Construction' line -type. d. Provide labels to indicate Limits of Construction = 0.19 Ac. (area of land disturbance). e. E&SC plan elements (apart from grading), including proposed temporary E&SC perimeter measures (silt fence), seeding schedules, general erosion and sediment control notes, C-05 A text, and C 06 silt fence detail may be removed from Site Plan Amendment, but see item 14J., below. f. Please delete General Erosion and Sediment Control Note ES-4. g. E&SC Note ES-5 is problematic: Contractor may not exceed 10,OOOsq.ft. area of disturbance without triggering multiple review and permit requirements. If this note persists as a site plan note, which Engineering recommends, please revise text slightly to set an upper limit disturbance of less than 10,000sq.ft. If LOD < 10,000sq.ft., multiple requirements can be avoided. If LOD >10,000sq.ft., Albemarle may be required to issue a stop work, request/require applications, submittals, fees, etc., which could significantly impact the project. h. Retain E&SC Note ES-10 as a general note on Minor Site Plan Amendment (MIA). i. Note ES-13 is a useful reminder. Engineering recommends retain on MIA as a general note. j. Summary (General E&SC Notes) i. Engineering recommends retain (in some location on the MIA) with identical or revised text, these notes: ES-1, ES-5 (edit text), ES-10, ES-12 (proximity to US Rt. 250), ES-13. ii. Engineering does not object if remaining General E&SC notes are removed with the understanding that if LOD >10,000sq.ft., a separate VSMP/WPO plan application is required and must be reviewed and approved prior to Minor Amendment approval. k. Should LOD increase to>_10,000sq.ft., a separate WPO Application is required with items listed at 14.e. transferred to a VSMP /WPO plan, which will in turn consider erosion and sediment control and stormwater management requirements, including a SWPPP with pollution prevention plan. Link to Engineering Applications: https://www.albemarle.org/gove=ent/community-development/anply- for/en ing� eering-applications Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069 Thank you J. Anderson SDP2020-00062 DS Tavern MIA 121120rev1