HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500006 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2015-10-07YlAGIl`11A
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Christopher Perez, Planning
From:
Justin Deel, Engineering
Date:
7 October 2015
Subject:
Sunset Overlook (SDP201500006)
The initial site plan for Sunset Overlook has been reviewed. The following concerns should be addressed;
1. Remove disturbances from preserved slopes. Aerial topography will not warrant removal of
preserved slope designations. A field survey provided by a licensed Professional Surveyor would
be required. In addition, while it is possible that a field survey may prove that some slopes
designated as preserved are less than 25 %, it will likely warrant additional areas to be designated
as preserved, as the site must be reevaluated as a whole. The steep slopes overlay district tries to
preserve contiguous areas, so results of any new evaluation will need to avoid breaking slope areas
into fragments. [30.7.4(b)(h)]
Comment not addressed. Per the ordinance section noted above; new topographic information
should be based on more accurate or better technical data demonstrating that slopes are less than
twenty -five percent, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer (emphasis added). The County
Engineer requires either a field survey, provided by a licensed Professional Survey, or convincing
certified documentation that the new aerial topographic source is more accurate than the existing
steep slopes overlay district topography.
2. Stormwater management does not appear adequately addressed with this plan. A large portion, if
not majority, of the site appears to be untreated. SWM facilities would be better suited at the low
side of the site (B 1 and 132). The proposed drainage to these facilities would be very difficult to
implement, if possible, and appear to only treat the road, at best. Much of the drainage intended,
presumably, to be captured by SWM Al would bypass this facility. It is unclear to us how your
SWM plan would be effectively implemented, given the locations of your facilities. A VRRM
spreadsheet printout should be provided showing how you plan to comply with Type IIB criteria.
Comment not addressed. The added detention systems do not address the water quality concern
noted above. How will the Type IIB water quality criteria be met? The SWM calculation packet,
referenced in the comment response letter, was not found. The comment response letter states that
the majority of the site will be treated via a bio retention pond; however, it is difficult to see how
this is possible given that the bio retention filters are still located on the high side of the site.
Please address.
3. A County approved turnaround must be provided at the end of all proposed streets (Street C), see
Albemarle County Design Standards Manual. Turnarounds should be 6% grade or flatter.
Comment not addressed. T- or branch -type turnarounds are not permitted. Provide an approved
turnaround (cul -de -sac) for Street C. See Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forins center/departments/community _ development/for
ms /design standards _manual/Albemarle _CopM Design Standards_ Manual_ 2015-04 -
25_draft.pdf
4. Arrangements must be made and documented with the owner of parcel 76 -52N concerning grading
on that off -site property and removal of the driveway and along Street A. Lots cannot overlap this
parcel (Lot 16). Additionally, it must be shown that excess runoff will not pass through this or
other parcels as a result of this development.
Comment not addressed. County GIS does not indicate that 76 -52N has been purchased by the
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review comments
Page 2 of 2
project parcel owner.
5. Retaining walls should not result in the disturbance of preserved slopes. Please adjust retaining
wall heights and locations.
Comment not addressed. Retaining walls are still located within the preserved slope overlay, see
comment 1.
6. Retaining walls must be, at minimum, a distance equal to the height of the wall away from
adjacent properties, please adjust. Alternatively, easements for work on adjacent property should
be provided.
Comment not addressed. There is an 8' retaining wall less than 5' from the 76 -52C parcel
boundary. Please address.
file: SDP201500006 Sunset Overlook ISP Rl.doc