HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000223 Review Comments Preliminary Plat 2021-01-28� AI
�h
�lRGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Subdivision Plan Review
Project title:
Dunlom Farm Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Project file number:
SUB2020-00223
Plan preparer:
Bethany Velasquez, Roudabush, Gale and Assoc.
999 Second St. SE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 bethanv(d�roudabush.com
Owner or rep.:
Phillips E L and Ann P Phillips, Living Trust, et al, c/o Caroline Molina -Ray
6704 Menchaca Road, Unit 33, Austin, TX 78745
Developer:
Keith Lancaster, Southern Development / 142 S. Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911 [ klancaster(i�southem-develooment.com ]
Plan received date:
17 Dec 2020
Date of comments:
28 Jan 2021
Plan Coordinator:
Cameron Langille
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SUB2020-00223
V1
1. VGIN LIDAR is acceptable source of topography. Please provide date of photometric data.
2. VGIN LIDAR data is acceptable source of exhibit topography, with LS-seal on Steep Slopes Exhibit.
3. Any sheet that shows existing topography and physical improvements must be sealed by a licensed land
surveyor if VGIN LIDAR data is basis of existing or proposed topography.
4. Note: Please see email to RGA, 1/27/2021 11:13 AM, which outlines county interpretation re. use of
LiDAR data as source of topography for any design that shows physical improvements. Also, § 54.1-402,
Code of Virginia.
5. Please edit title of Critical Slopes Exhibit to Steep Slopes Exhibit since project is in the development area.
6. Please also ensure all numeric -text information on each sheet of Steep Slopes exhibit is readable, % slope
for shaded (steep slopes) or unshaded (removed) areas, for example.
7. Please revise Note 9. to clarify that proposed grading shown on preliminary plat sheets occurs only in areas
shown by VGIN LIDAR (or physical survey) to be less than 25% grade, since grading cannot occur on
steep slope areas (>_ 25% slopes), except for SWM facility outfall/s.
8. Please revise Note 4 to reference May 16, 2016 (Floodplain Eff. Date, 18-30.3.2.)
V2
9. Show FEMA horizontal limits of floodplain continuous, unobscured by steep slopes shading.
■niu "-'wa sR
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
10. Recommend remove lot 26 from horizontal limits of floodplain (blue circle, image, below).
11. Provide copy of recorded Retaining Wall Maintenance Agreement for any wall that spans lot lines, Lots
22-23, 3-4, 6-9, 150-151, 78-80 (and 82), and Lots 11-13, for example. Albemarle is not party to these
Agreements but needs deed bk.-pg. reference to recorded Retaining Wall Maintenance Agreements
between owners of affected lots.
12. Provide additional existing contour labels near proposed grading /dwellings, Lots 11-30, to aid review.
13. Revise `Private SWM Facility Easement' to `Public SWM Facility Easement.'
14. Please ensure subsequent WPO and ROAD Plans show runoff from Odom Ct., a public road, routed to
SWM facility (preliminary plat shows this via proposed storm line within easement between Lots 13-14),
this SWM facility appears to discharge across preserved slopes. The only by -right construction of a SWM
facility outfall across preserved steep slopes is if a SWM facility is a necessary, public facility, which it is if
it receives /treats runoff from Odom Court. (Ref. 18-30.7.4.b.I.e.)
15. Revise `private drainage easement' label (Lots 13, 14) to read `public drainage easement.'
16. Submit WPO and ROAD Plan and Floodplain Development Permit (FDP) applications at earliest
convenience.
17. Notes:
a. Steep Slopes Exhibit approval is required prior to/with Preliminary Plat approval since the steep
slopes exhibit proposes to remove critical areas proposed to be developed from the steep slopes
overlay district based on UDAR /photometric survey data.
b. Please see email sent to RGA on topic of slopes /LiDAR (January 22, 2021 3:35 PM, 1/27/2021
11:13 AM).
c. FDP review /approval is required prior to WPO plan approval. (link to FDP Application:
hfti)s://www.albemarle.org/home/Showpublisheddocument?id=176
d. Slopes exhibit approval is required prior to WPO plan approval, since SWM facility outfall crosses
preserved steep slopes.
e. ROAD Plan and WPO plan approval are required prior to Final Plat approval.
f. With WPO, provide detail sufficient to demonstrate compliance with state SWM quality /quantity
requirements.
g. A deed of dedication of public drainage easement and separate deed of dedication of public SWM
facility are required to be recorded with the final subdivision plat.
h. A WPO plan bond is required to receive a Grading Permit.
i. Roads must be built or bonded prior to final subdivision plat approval.
j. Retaining walls higher than 3' require a building permit.
k. Retaining walls higher than 4' require sealed plans.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
1. Submit sealed retaining wall plan to Engineering for review prior to/with ROAD plan or WPO
plan (or at earliest convenience).
m. Engineering review of retaining wall plans is separate from county building inspections review of
retaining wall plans.
18. SWM, East of intersection of Fowler Street and Goldsbeny Lane: Clarify with revised preliminary plat
how proposed grading with significant vertical interval works with proposed SWM. Identify type of SWM
facility proposed to be constructed within proposed private SWM facility easement.
19. Please revise Private SWMfacility easement label (last comment) to read Public SWM facility easement.
20. Engineering has general concerns that proposed development, including physical improvements (retaining
walls, residential units, SWM facilities, grades), occurs in close proximity to preserved steep slopes.
21. Once Steep Slopes Exhibit approved, revise steep slopes across all sheets to: preserve current steep slope
overlay boundaries (indicate with line-type/labels), indicate areas of former steep slopes overlay (areas
removed from steep slopes, no shading), and show steep slopes which persist steeper than 25%. Shade
persistent steep slopes. Please call if any questions. Goal is to eliminate ambiguity: preliminary plat does
not approve development across revised steep slopes.
22. RETAINING WALLS: Please review standards at 18-4.3.3.A. when designing retaining walls.
23. Cuts and Fills: Please review /ref. standards at 18-4.3.3.B.
24. Reverse slope benches /diversion: Please review 18-4.3.3.C.
25. Fire Access Road does not connect with Adams Street. Please clarify design intent.
26. Please ensure revised preliminary plat meets 18-30.3 requirements for permissible use or activity within
mapped floodplain.
27. Revise Floodzone Note to reference May 16, 2016 (FIRM), rather than Feb. 04, 2005. (see 18-30.3.2)
28. Check that shaded preserved and managed steep slopes exclude areas shown to be flatter than 25%, per
RGA Dunlora Farms Subdivision Critical Slopes Exhibit, dated 12/2/20, submitted with preliminary plat.
29. Ensure revised preliminary plat meets 18-30.3 requirements for permissible use or activity within mapped
floodplain.
V3
30. Label floodway if floodway linework displays on this sheet.
V4
31. Please revise private drainage and private SWM facility easement labels to reference public drainage and
public SWM facility easements.
V5
32. Remove retaining wall, Lot 165, from limits of mapped floodplain.
33. Tarlton Street storm pipe (behind Lot 173) must be revised to direct discharge perpendicular to grade.
Additional comments possible with WPO /ROAD (drainage) plan review.
34. It appears surface storm runoff may cross 3 or more lots, in one or more locations. Please note drainage
plan review checklist requirement:
provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense development where
fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes in easements,
rather than ditches {Policy}
V3-V5
35. `W' (ACSA waterline) does not display, please increase pitch of abbreviation with revised preliminary plat,
so visible.
36. Additional comments relating to roadway likely with ROAD Plan. For example: Miranda Drive appears to
provide right -of way F beyond sidewalk on south side of road, but appears coincident with edge of walk on
north side of road. Engineering requests public right-of-way extend F beyond sidewalks throughout the
development to allow future VDOT maintenance of sidewalks without encroaching on individual lots.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
37. Please revise any label reading private drainage easement to read public drainage easement if storm system
conveys runoff from a public road, whether runoff is routed to a SWM facility or not.
38. Floodplain, horizontal limits BFE: Although detail will be presented with the FDP Application, additional
detail is requested to be shown with the preliminary plat at this location. Show BFEs for Rivanna River, as
floodplain transits development parcel. Recommend overlay VFRIS FEMA FIRM floodway BFE data
across plan sheets. Please carefully review VFRIS BFE data (355', 354') against VGIN LIDAR data.
Sec. 30.3.13- Encroachment standards; determining impact on base Flood elevation.
Any use, structure or other development authorized by section 30.3.11 shall be subject to the following:
A. Within the floodwayin ZoneA1-30 orAE. The following shall apply within the regulatory flootlway of any 1-3oor AE:
1. Encroachmentprohibited unless owner demonstrates no increase in water surface elevation ofth ase flood.
39.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
Floodplain shaded blue with horizontal hatching; parcel outlined in yellow.
(Albemarle County GIS — Critical Resource Map layer)
Wy
lOWn EI ti '... r
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
Please feel free to call if any questions.
Thank you
I Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SUB202000223 Dunlora Farm Subdivision prelim 012821