HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201300015 Correspondence 2013-02-20 COLLINS 24ARRETT 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
Nor
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