HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000047 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2010-07-09� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Saint Anne's Beliield; Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP- 2010 - 00047)
Plan preparer: Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, PE
Owner or rep.: Saint Anne's Beliield
Plan received date: 15 June 2010
Date of comments: 9 July 2010
Reviewer: Phil Custer
1. Engineering review has been informed by the Planning Department that the Chief of Current
Development and the Zoning Administrator have determined that the proposed footprint of the
building is in substantial accord with the application plan of the Special Permit for the expansion
of the school (SP- 2007 - 00053).
2. The playing field east of the central athletic field must be removed via a site plan amendment
before or at the time of the site plan approval for the new field on UVA property, as allowed by the
approval of SP- 2009 - 00035. Engineering review recommends the current application be used to
amend this area by simply showing the existing grades, the existing treelines absent of all
buildings and pavement to be demoed, no play field, and no grading. If this is not done with this
application, the grading around the new preschool must tie in with the proposed grading of the
field east of the central field (which will likely not be built) to be consistent with the last approved
site plan (SDP- 2009 - 00008).
3. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is required.
4. Please provide calculations to help determine whether stormwater management quality is required
(Stormwater detention will not be considered an issue for this application). At a minimum,
determine the total pre and post development impervious areas in this small section of the school
site. It may be beneficial to the applicant to remove all unnecessary existing pavement. [17 -315
and Condition # 5 of SP- 2007 - 00053]
5. Please label the existing edge of pavement north of the new building if it is to remain.
6. The small asphalt berm should be replaced with a CG -3 (mountable curb) or the grading of the
asphalt area should be modified so there is a 6" rise over loft. If the latter option is chosen, a
detail will be required.
7. Please provide a detail for the new paved ditch.
8. There is a callout for a site wall that is not retaining but there appears to be no structure in the
vicinity of the arrow. Please clarify.
9. Please provide several spot elevations at the base of the each retaining wall around the building.
Any wall taller than 4ft will require handrails.
10. Please show the existing drainage pipes around the building and their direction of flow.
11. The entrance walk appears to be graded rather steeply. Please provide a several spot elevations in
this area. Will steps be necessary? Does this entrance need to meet ADA requirements?
12. Where does the drainage system in front of the building outlet?
13. Please label the small retaining wall at the front of the site.