Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200300319 Review Comments Family Division Plat 2021-07-15V 401 McIntire Road, North Wing County of Albemarle Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Telephone:434-296-5832 WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG Family Subdivision Plat review Project title: Mehring Family Division Plat Project file number: SUB2003-00319 Plan preparer: David Jordan, LS, Commonwealth Land Surveying, LLC [ daveAvacls.com ] 1484 Greenbrier Place, Charlottesville, VA 22901 Owner or rep.: Ryan G. Mehring & Jacqueline M. Simounet ( ryanmehring gmail.com ) 3895 Hungrytown Road, Covesville, VA 22931 Plan received date: 25 Jun 2021 Date of comments: 15 Jul 2021 Plan Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos Reviewer: John Anderson 1. Please confirm no change to the driveway entrance off SR 698 (Hungrytown Road) is proposed. During a site visit 12/9/20 (J. Anderson, Ryan Mehring, Walter Mehring), improvements discussed included grading that avoids critical slopes to construct a gravel access /driveway to a proposed build site on an elevated ridge on TMP 97-22C that overlooks a stream to the NE, with steep drops to the east and south. Proposed new driveway access departs an existing driveway that serves 3917 Hungrytown Road at approximate GIs contour 942, over 500' distant from SR 698. If true, VDOT likely has limited if any review role. See 2"d photo, below. 2. If plat of Commonwealth Land Surveying, LLC, d. April 28, 2021, is intended (in part) to provide private right-of-way access to the build site (TMP 97-22C) reviewed 12/9/20, it appears not to. Please compare GIS image below with (red -line distance to SR 698 and) approximate blue line driveway alignment to the build site, with CLS plat. The plat proposes a revised right -of way that skirts a steep (critical) slope bluff depicted in GIS. The proposed revised right-of-way provides no access, as proposed, to the build site on TMP 97-22C. If it is intended to provide driveway access to the build site on TMP 97-22C, the revised right-of-way alignment should be revised, accordingly. 3. Please ensure that the revised (final revised) right-of-way avoids critical slopes. Engineering has evaluated and confirmed that a less -than 16 percent grade exists along less -steep portions of non -critical slopes, adequate, with proper grading, to provide driveway access to a build site on TMP 97-22C. Fire rescue is welcome to evaluate terrain, as well, or may rely on Engineering evaluation that a possible lot access alignment meeting 18-4.6.6 requirements exists. 4. Engineering defers to Planning, but it is not immediately apparent to Engineering that lot access to TMP 97-22C only would require revised right-of-way to be labeled private street easement. 5. Since 14-410.17. directs Engineering in this instance to standards listed at 14-412.A.4., then provided the plat carries note requested by Planning review item 15., verbatim then based on site visit 12/9/20 and familiarity with lot access -driveway alignment, Engineering has no further request for driveway design data or feasibility assurance, relative to 14-412.A.4, or 18-4.6.6. 6. If plat elects to (or is required to) delineate a build site on TMP #97-22C, then please ensure build site avoids critical slopes and stream buffers. 7. Please show /label existing structure visible in GIS on TMP 97-22C at base of bluff at approximate elevation contour 911 as a `pole shed'. 8. Engineering has no objection to a revised driveway /lot access alignment consistent with homesite /build site development plans discussed between landowners (W. Mehring, R. Mehring) and County Q. Anderson) on 12/9/20, but cautions that the proposed plat does not provide lot access to the site atop bluff reviewed together by county and landowners on 12/9/20. Engineering recommends that the right-of-way proposed Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 6 with plat overlay GIS narrow sliver of non -critical slopes leading to the elevated portion of TW 97-22C, prior to plat resubmittal. 9. If plat is revised consistent with alignment reviewed 12/9/20 and confirmed to be less than 16 percent max. grade on that date (see photos), then Engineering has no objection or additional comment on lot access /driveway alignment relative to access requirements listed at 18-4.6.6. County GIS: Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 6 Pole wood shed (blue circle), TMP 97-22C (county GIS) t tam ►LR!,fir z °G aq ss Y i di ♦ . dt i ;+� ' 6 /D 4�1 / It YI FO R1YYAfs 1 ' Po" II�� A x k94 ii`s3�''��'fi4,11►"`,A._cS �'\-..� , ti _ f *. ` tWjot ��f ac.14