HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900004 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2009-07-29*-&A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth Marotta, Current Development Project Planner
From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review
Date: 29 June 2009
(Rev. 1) 29 July 2009
Subject: AT &T Tower on the Elledge Property (SDP- 2008 - 00178)
The site plan for the AT &T Tower on the Elledge Property has been reviewed. The engineering review for
current development can recommend approval after the following comments have been addressed:
This project will need to be granted a waiver to disturb critical slopes from the Planning
Commission. Engineering review of the critical slope waiver will be given in a separate letter.
(Rev. 1) The critical slopes waiver will be considered by the planning commission on their
August 18`h meeting. Engineering review has clarified the 4000sf disturbance statement in the
engineering analysis of the critical slope waiver. The report was referring to total disturbance,
not critical slope disturbance alone.
It is the policy of the county that all slopes steeper than 3:1 should be planted with a low -
maintenance, non -grass groundcover because the county has not had success with grass
stabilization on 2:1 slopes. Because these 2:1 slopes are located within a wooded area, it will be
even more difficult for the grass to permanently stabilize the slope. In the engineering report, I
specified gravel because it was already being used on site for the road and lease area, but any
low maintenance, non -grass groundcover will satisfy stabilization concerns. Examples of these
groundcovers can be found in Table 3.37C of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. The critical slope analysis memo to the planner has been updated regarding the 2:1
slopes.
2. A note stating that tree protection fencing is to be placed at the dripline of the tree has been
provided. However, grading has been shown inside the fencing of tree #9, the 32" Chestnut Oak.
In order for this tree to be protected adequately, all construction should be pulled outside of the
dripline (which does not appear to be surveyed specifically since all trees have the same 13ft
canopy). A tree wall /well is most likely required for this site in order to protect adjacent trees. I
also recommend that the dripline of each tree be verified in the field to assure adequate protection
in the design.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Though, engineering review recommends that fill also
be removed from within the dripline of the tree.
File: E2_fsp_PBC_sdp200900004.doc