Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000084 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2011-05-11Philip Custer From: Philip Custer Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:39 PM To: 'jMatusik @enggroupe.com'; ulcwww @embargmail.com Cc: Gerald Gatobu Subject: Engineering approval of Briarwood Amendments I have reviewed the revised sheets (ESC: 5, 7, 8, 9 and SDP: 6,14,18,22,27) that were mailed over this past weekend. All sheets provided to me are approvable, but the package was missing ESC sheet 3 that should have shown the limits of construction on the property line (matching what was approved with the previous plan) rather than into the adjacent property. The ESC and road plan amendments are hereby approved on the condition that this sheet (ESC 3) is satisfactorily revised when the approval sets are submitted to me. As I stated in previous emails, I will need 4 copies of the ESC plan set and 3 copies of the road plan set to pass along to the inspectors. I have 4 copies of the ESC set and 3 copies of the road plan set from the March submittal, but these sets will need the updated sheets that were sent to me this weekend. The applicant can bring the appropriate copies of these sheets to the county building and replace the sheets in the sets I currently have. If you choose this option, please let me know when you plan on removing these sheets. Otherwise, the applicant can send 4 (ESC) and 3 (road) new sets to me. The 4 copies of the site plan should be sent directly to Gerald for his signature. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil (434) 296 -5832 x3072 � 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: Briarwood Phases IA, 113, 4, and 8 Site Plan Amendment (SDP- 2010 - 00084), Road Plan Amendment (SDP- 2006 - 00041), and ESC Plan Amendment (WPO- 2006- 00066) Plan preparer: Mr. John Matusik, PE; The Engineering Groupe Owner or rep.: Woodbriar Associates Plan received date: (Rev. 1) 7 March 2011 19 October 2010 Date of comments: (Rev. 1) 18 April 2011 29 November 2010 Reviewer: Phil Custer The first revision to the amendments to the road, esc, and site plans for Briarwood Phases 1A, 113, 4, and 8, submitted 7 March 2011, have been received and reviewed by County Engineering. The minor site plan amendment has been provided a new number. Engineering will track this revision to the ESC and Road plans under the previously approved application numbers. When the road plans are approved, the updated sheets will replace the outdated versions in the construction set used by the county inspector. The following comments must be addressed prior to plan approval. A. Site, Road, and Drainage Plan Review (SDP- 2010 -00084 and SDP - 2006 - 00041) 1. I recommend processing a variation to straighten out the phasing lines with the Planning Department as soon as possible. (Rev. 1) It is my understanding that the variation for modifications to the phase lines has been granted. 2. Please remove any reference to the future lots south of Lot 111. Please also correct the grading in this area so that the proposed contours meet. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 3. On commercially zoned properties, there is a 20ft undisturbed buffer adjacent to all residential and rural zoning districts. Please revise the grading plan so as to not disturb this buffer or please provide a request to allow for construction activity to clear this area per 18- 21.7.c. The Planning Commission will likely need to consider this waiver request. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please show no more disturbance to this buffer than what was improperly approved in the original plan. Grading is currently shown within this buffer at the corner of lot 127. 4. The current proposed amendment replaces several large 3:1 slopes with 2:1 grades. This modification requires a low- maintenance, non - grassed groundcover. Please note on each revised grading sheet this requirement in the general area of the slope. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 5. Engineering review notes that there are several areas where parking and driveways are shown at greater than 5%. However, since the plan has always seemed to have these steep driveways throughout the life of the project, engineering review will not require a revision to the grading plan to make these corrections. I recommend re- evaluating the grading plan to provide more reasonable driveways and parking spaces. 6. The storm sewer system 15 -14 must capture the rear of units 112 -119 to satisfy the County's Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 Water Protection Ordinance. [17- 312.C] This can either be done with a revision to the grading or providing roofdrain collectors for the rear of the buildings and directing the pipe into structure 14. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. The drainage profile for structures 14 -15 does not appear to be updated after the revised grading. It appears the entire drainage system will need to be lowered at least until structure 10. Please update the drainage profile and calculations accordingly. Please note that an increased depth to the drainage system will require a wider easement per the formula on page 12 of the design manual, available online. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 8. On sheet 13, structure 5 looks to be labeled with a top elevation of 20, with a freeboard of lft. However, the profile does not show this. Also, the top elevation of structure 4 does not appear to match the grading on sheet 13. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. The profile for structures 31 B through 27 looks different from the approved version. Please clarify. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. It looks as though structures 119A and 119B should have the same top elevation. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. The drainage profiles for 20B -21 and 23 -19 do not appear to have been updated. Please adjust the calculations and profiles accordingly. Because of the sharp angle in structure 21, the invert for the pipe from 20B must enter the structure no shallower than the center of the invert out pipe. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 12. The Townhouse Schedule on the cover sheet appears to need to be updated. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. B. ESC Plan Review (WPO- 2006 - 00066) 1. Please update the county's general ESC notes on the cover sheet. The latest edition of the notes can be found within the design manual, available online. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 2. An area of the property on sheets 3 and 7 are shown as being amended. However, the only difference between the submitted set and what was approved appears to be the expansion of the limits of disturbance. Are any of the ESC methods being modified? (Rev. 1) Other modifications to the approved plan have been identified: -An outlet protection symbol within Pond 2 has been omitted. Please add this symbol back to the plan. - Grading has been added around the intersection of Sparrow Lane and Sunset Drive. Please provide silt fence at the base of this fill. If any other modifications to the approved plan are proposed, please identify them so they can be reviewed. 3. On sheets 3, 4, 7, and 8, the limits of construction have expanded into an undisturbed buffer area on the offsite property. Please either modify the limits of disturbance in these areas to the previously approved limits or request a waiver of this requirement per 18- 21.7.c. The Planning Commission will likely need to consider this waiver request. (Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please show no more disturbance to this buffer than what was improperly approved in the original plan. 4. On sheet 6, please show the riprap on the spillway of SB -5 and within the downstream channel. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 5. An update to the existing ESC bond will not be necessary due to the minor alterations to the plan. k� Al �'IRGIly1�' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: John Matusik From: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: February 8, 2011 Subject: SDP 2010 -084 Briarwood, Phases 1A -1, 113-1, and 8 Minor Amendment The Albemarle County Division of Zoning and Community Development: Zoning and Planning Review has reviewed the submitted minor site plan amendment referenced above. The minor amendment will not be approved/signed until the following conditions have been satisfied: 1. Please add to the cover sheet or title heading of the site plan the words MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT for Briarwood. This will establish that this is a minor site plan amendment to SDP 2006 - 00041. 2. The three lots shown on sheet 6 of 35 with the note "Reservation for future lots subject to separate review" need to be added to the current site plan or removed entirely and reviewed at a later date. Please contact Gerald Gatobu at g ato�bu(,albemarle.or or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3385 if you have any questions. � 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: Briarwood Phases IA, 113, 4, and 8 Site Plan Amendment (SDP- 2010 - 00084), Road Plan Amendment (SDP- 2006 - 00041), and ESC Plan Amendment (WPO- 2006- 00066) Plan preparer: Mr. John Matusik, PE; The Engineering Groupe Owner or rep.: Woodbriar Associates Plan received date: 19 October 2010 Date of comments: 29 November 2010 Reviewer: Phil Custer The amendments to the road, esc, and site plans for Briarwood Phases IA, 1B, 4, and 8, submitted 19 October 2010, have been received and reviewed by County Engineering. The minor site plan amendment has been provided a new number. Engineering will track this revision to the ESC and Road plans under the previously approved application numbers. When the road plans are approved, the updated sheets will replace the outdated versions in the construction set used by the county inspector. The following comments must be addressed prior to plan approval. A. Site, Road, and Drainage Plan Review (SDP- 2010 -00084 and SDP - 2006 - 00041) 1. I recommend processing a variation to straighten out the phasing lines with the Planning Department as soon as possible. 2. Please remove any reference to the future lots south of Lot 111. Please also correct the grading in this area so that the proposed contours meet. 3. On commercially zoned properties, there is a 20ft undisturbed buffer adjacent to all residential and rural zoning districts. Please revise the grading plan so as to not disturb this buffer or please provide a request to allow for construction activity to clear this area per 18- 21.7.c. The Planning Commission will likely need to consider this waiver request. 4. The current proposed amendment replaces several large 3:1 slopes with 2:1 grades. This modification requires a low- maintenance, non - grassed groundcover. Please note on each revised grading sheet this requirement in the general area of the slope. 5. Engineering review notes that there are several areas where parking and driveways are shown at greater than 5%. However, since the plan has always seemed to have these steep driveways throughout the life of the project, engineering review will not require a revision to the grading plan to make these corrections. I recommend re- evaluating the grading plan to provide more reasonable driveways and parking spaces. 6. The storm sewer system 15 -14 must capture the rear of units 112 -119 to satisfy the County's Water Protection Ordinance. [17- 312.C] This can either be done with a revision to the grading or providing roofdrain collectors for the rear of the buildings and directing the pipe into structure 14. 7. The drainage profile for structures 14 -15 does not appear to be updated after the revised grading. It appears the entire drainage system will need to be lowered at least until structure 10. Please update the drainage profile and calculations accordingly. Please note that an increased depth to the drainage system will require a wider easement per the formula on page 12 of the design manual, available online. 8. On sheet 13, structure 5 looks to be labeled with a top elevation of 20, with a freeboard of 1 ft. However, the profile does not show this. Also, the top elevation of structure 4 does not appear to Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 match the grading on sheet 13. 9. The profile for structures 31B through 27 looks different from the approved version. Please clarify. 10. It looks as though structures 119A and 119B should have the same top elevation. 11. The drainage profiles for 20B -21 and 23 -19 do not appear to have been updated. Please adjust the calculations and profiles accordingly. Because of the sharp angle in structure 21, the invert for the pipe from 20B must enter the structure no shallower than the center of the invert out pipe. 12. The Townhouse Schedule on the cover sheet appears to need to be updated. B. ESC Plan Review (WPO- 2006 - 00066) 1. Please update the county's general ESC notes on the cover sheet. The latest edition of the notes can be found within the design manual, available online. 2. An area of the property on sheets 3 and 7 are shown as being amended. However, the only difference between the submitted set and what was approved appears to be the expansion of the limits of disturbance. Are any of the ESC methods being modified? 3. On sheets 3, 4, 7, and 8, the limits of construction have expanded into an undisturbed buffer area on the offsite property. Please either modify the limits of disturbance in these areas to the previously approved limits or request a waiver of this requirement per 18- 21.7.c. The Planning Commission will likely need to consider this waiver request. 4. On sheet 6, please show the riprap on the spillway of SB -5 and within the downstream channel. 5. An update to the existing ESC bond will not be necessary due to the minor alterations to the plan.