The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201300023 Correspondence 2013-02-20 Michelle Roberge From: Graham Murray[graham @collins-engineering.com] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:51 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: Belvedere TC&Glenmore Plans Attachments: E2_rp,esc,swm_Glenmore Leake K2 Lots 24-27 &29.pdf; 130611 Glenmore Sheet 3- Revised per Approval Condition 4.pdf Michelle, I wanted to follow up on this e-mail to ensure comments #3 and #4 have been resolved. Thanks, Graham Original Message From: Graham Murray Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:00 AM To: Michelle Roberge (mrobergegaalbemarle.org) Subject: FW: Belvedere TC & Glenmore Plans Good morning Michelle, I wanted to follow up your e-mail from Wednesday on Glenmore lots 24-27 & 29. Below is an e- mail from Fire & Rescue stating their approval of the plans. Also, I have attached a revised plan sheet showing the hatched existing driveway to be removed on lot 29. These two items should resolve conditions #3 and #4 of your conditional approval dated June 5, 2013. If you have any questions/concerns please let me know. Thanks, Graham Original Message From: Shawn Maddox [mailto:smaddox(alalbemarle.org] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:23 PM To: Graham Murray Subject: RE: Belvedere TC & Glenmore Plans Graham - based on our phone conversation on June 6, 2013 the Belvedere Town Center plans recently submitted for Fire Rescue review will have no objections from our department per your previous email discussions with Robbie Gilmer. The plans submitted for Glenmore Lots 24- 27 & 29 will have no objections from Fire Rescue based on your measurements and assurances the maximum hydrant spacing requirements are met. If you need further please let me know. Shawn Maddox Albemarle County Fire Rescue From: Graham Murray [mailto:graham Ocollins-engineering.com] Sent: Thu 6/6/2013 8:59 AM To: Shawn Maddox Subject: Belvedere TC & Glenmore Plans 1 Now -ftwe Good morning Shawn, Thank you for reviewing the Belvedere TC amendment plans, and the Glenmore Lots 24-27 & 29 plans. Per our conversation this morning, can you please send me an e-mail documenting Fire & Rescue's approval of these two plans? Thanks and have a great day. Graham Graham Murray, P.E. COLLINS ENGINEERING www.collins-engineering.com <http://www.collins-engineering.com/> 200 Garrett Street, Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 Cell: (434) 566-3011 graham(alcollins-engineering.com <mailto:kirsten(alcollins-engineering.com> 2 COLLINS Nev® 201orapeRRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins-engineering.com Michelle Roberge Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville,VA 22902 RE: Glenmore Leake K2 Los 24-27 & 29 (SUB 201300023 and WPO 201300015) Thank you for your comments on the project referenced above. Please let this letter supplement the revised plans in response to your comments dated March 12th, 2013. A. Road and drainage plans (SUB 201300023) 1. Sheet 5 has been updated show the private road notes instead of the public road notes. 2. The road width for Carroll Creek Road is 20' and does not vary.The applicant acknowledges the existing gravel road that Carroll Creek Road is proposed over does vary and makes it appear as though Carroll Creek Road's width varies, however it doesn't. Notes and dimensions have been added to the plans showing the consistent 20' width and this was deemed an acceptable resolution to this comment during a phone conversation between Mr. Murray of Collins Engineering and Ms. Roberge on April 16th, 2013. 3. Scott Collins of Collins Engineering has been in contact with Zoning and a zoning variance is not required. Also, Mr. Murray spoke with Mr. Higgins on April 19th, 2013 and he stated upgrading the emergency access road to a private road is acceptable to zoning provided a fence/gate is installed at the end of Running Deer Drive's existing cul-de-sac and the lots 24 and 29's driveways access the proposed upgrade of Carroll Creek Road and not the existing road. The proposed plans are compliant with this and therefore Zoning should be satisfied. Also, sheet 5 has been updated to show the ADT for Carroll Creek Road under the cross section. The ADT for this small portion of the road will be minimal and the cross section on the road is overdesigned. Also, pavement calculations have been added to sheet 5. 4. This comment is acknowledged and will be a requirement of the subdivision plat, not the SUB or WPO plans. 5. During the phone conversation on April 19th, Mr. Murray was advised by Mr. Higgins that Zoning did not have an issue with a portion of lots 26 and 27 being located on another lot and this would be an issue that needs to be resolved with the subdivision plat. He advised Mr. Murray this would not hold up SUB or WPO approval and would be a requirement of the subdivision plat. Also, a maximum 16%grade can be maintained for lot 27 and the plans have been revised to reflect this. During a meeting between Mr. Murray and County Engineering held on April 18th it was determined Engineering would reviewer their files to see if impacts to (manmade) critical slopes have previously been approved for the driveway location of lot 27. 6. An additional sheet has been added at Engineering's request separating the site plan from the utility plan.The proposed easements are now shown more clearly and the existing onsite easements all have deed book and page numbers. During the April 18th meeting referenced above Ms. Roberge advised Mr. Murray that the deed book and page number shown for the portion of the existing Nwie- sanitary sewer onsite would be sufficient to address this comment. B. Stormwater Management (WPO 201300015) 1. A 5' drainage easement running alongside the property line has been added and labeled on sheet 3 to address this concern. 2. A drainage easement has been added to the plans for the ditch flowing to the road. During the April 18th meeting County Engineering advised Mr. Murray that the ditch flowing towards lot 29, and consequently a proposed drainage easement, should be removed from the plans since the overall existing slopes drains to the SWM facility and the installation of a ditch would create more disturbances. 3. The access to the SWM facility is provided via the adjacent Farringdon Road and it is noted as such on the plans.The facility's drainage and SWM management easement and access easement has now been added to the plans and is labeled on sheet 7. County Engineering deemed the access and easement location shown on sheet 7 acceptable during the April 18th meeting. 4. The details have been revised to be at a scale of 1"=5'vertically and 1"=50' horizontally.The scaled detail is now shown on sheet 7. 5. Per the April 16th phone conversation between Ms. Roberge and Mr. Murray referenced previously, it was determined the steel plate collars could be removed to avoid disturbances to the embankment. It was also determined a geotechnical study would be required by the contractor and a note mandating this on the plans would be acceptable if VDOT standard and specification 113.05 was added to the plans showing an EC-3 lining along the embankment fill slopes. The plans have been revised to reflect these items, as well as to propose a permanent fence surrounding the facility and an updated forebay spillway. 6. The plans have been revised to now proposed 15" pipes with a minimum cover of 12". C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO 201300015) 1. This note has been added to the plans on sheet 6. 2. The plans and notes on sheet 6 have been updated to address this comment. 3. Dust control is shown more clearly and often on sheet 6 now. 4. The applicant shaded the critical slopes as much as their software would allow and made the silt fence darker and larger on the plans. 5. Silt fence has been added to sheet 6 running along the northern boundary of lot 27. 6. The limits of disturbance are shown on the plans and follow the property line for the majority of the time.The disturbance is labeled near the cul-de-sac of Running Deer Drive on sheet 6. 7. The permanent fence required with SWM comment#5 is proposed to be utilized during the ESC phase and it is labeled and shown on sheet 6. If you have any questions regarding the proposed plans please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Graham Murray, PE