The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201300035 Correspondence 2012-12-17 - (9I' COLLINS C N G 16\R E E qtr„„G {200 GAh eT ST,SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins-engineering.com December 17,2012 Christopher Perez Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Current Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 RE: Waiver Request for a Buffer Disturbance for Briarwood Gas Station–Preliminary Site Plan SDP 2012-00064 Dear Christopher Perez, I'm writing to request a waiver by the commission for the authorization of construction activity, grading, and clearing of vegetation to take place in the 20' buffer along the property line where the proposed commercial property is adjacent to an existing residential property. The waiver request is consistent with section 18-21.7.c of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance) –the commission may waive the prohibition of construction activity,grading or clearing of vegetation in the puffer in a particular case where the developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design,provided that the screening and landscaping requirements are met. In this case,this existing buffer area between the proposed commercial development and the existing residential property consists of sparse vegetation which has mostly been disturbed during the land development of the residential property over the past(2)years. The developer is proposing to re—grade this area, and establish a nice buffer between the two projects consisting of a mixture of evergreen trees and deciduous trees,which would greatly enhance this existing area. The alternate solution from grading within this 20' buffer area would be to install a 6'to 10' high retaining wall,which can be seen from the entrance corridor. Regrading the buffer and adding landscaping is a much better situation for establishing and maintaining a buffer between the(2)development projects, especially since most of the existing vegetation has been previously impacted with the residential development We ask that staff and the Commission grant the waiver and authorization for disturbance within the 20' buffer for the development of the Briarwood Gas Station. The principles of design and planning are better met with the proposed impact and re-establishment of the buffer than the preserving the sparsely • existing vegetation and creating a retaining wall situation that can be viewed from Route 29 entrance corridor. Thank you for considering this request. Reg ds, Scott Collins,PE Minimum depth and spacing requirements for a planting strip or existing vegetation. If only a planting strip or existing vegetation is provided as screening,the planting strip or the existing vegetation shall not be less than twenty(20)feet in depth. If a planting strip is provided,the plant materials shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees planted fifteen(15)feet on center,or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten (10)feet on center,or an alternative vegetative screening approved by the agent. Nome ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE 21.5 SIGN REGULATIONS Sign regulations shall be as prescribed in section 4.15. 21.6 MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA See section 32.7.9 for landscaping and screening requirements.(Amended 7-10-85;9-9-92) 21.7 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS The minimum yard requirements in the commercial districts are as follows: a. Adjacent to public streets. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be erected closer than thirty(30)feet to any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than ten(10)feet to any public street right-of-way. (Amended 7-10-85;7-8-92) b. Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. (Amended 7-10-85;7-8-92) c. Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty(20)feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9-9-92) 1. Waiver by the commission. The commission may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a particular case where the developer or subdivider demonstrateds that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design,provided that: (i) minimum screening requirements are met and (ii) existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7- 10-85) 2. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer zone in the following circumstances: (i)adequate landscape screening does not currently exist and the installation of screening which meets or exceeds the requirements of this chapter would result in disturbance to the buffer; (ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute a fall hazard;(iii)the county engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address an existing drainage problem; or (iv) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the use of a berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case, the developer or subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without disturbance of the buffer and the screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance of the buffer. (12-10-80, §§21.7,21.7.1,21.7.2,21.7.3;7-10-85,7-8-92,9-9-92;Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01;Ord.09-18(1), 1- 14-09, §21.7) 21.8 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS All utility lines are to be placed underground where practical. 21.9 BUILDING SEPARATION Whether or not located on the same parcel, main structures shall be constructed and separated in accordance with Table 401 Fire Resistance Ratings of Structure Elements of the BOCA Basic Building Code, 194 Edition or its equivalent in the current edition of the BOCA Basic Building Code. (Amended 10-15-6) 18-21-2 Zoning Supplement 451,1-14-09 COLLINS "+w 200 GARREvNO4T, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins-engineering.com December 17, 2012 &Ja/1XGc�' '' ' Christopher Perez Senior Planner S County of Albemarle ,fit Department of Community Development tA.5e_ ,,;�[I m Current Development 4., 401 McIntire Road / ,,y%...�p Charlottesville,VA 22902 RE: Waiver Request for a Buffer Disturbance for B iarwood Gas Station–Preliminary Site Plan SDP 2012-00064 Dear Christopher Perez, I'm writing to request a waiver by the commission for the authorization of construction activity, grading, and clearing of vegetation to take place in the 20' buffer along the property line where the proposed commercial property is adjacent to an existing residential property. The waiver request is consistent with section 18-21.7.c of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance) –the commission may waive the prohibition of construction activity,grading or clearing of vegetation in the puffer in a particular case where the developer or subdivider demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that the screening and landscaping requirements are met. In this case, this existing buffer area between the proposed commercial development and.the existing residential property consists of sparse vegetation which has mostly been disturbed during the land development of the residential property over the past(2)years. The developer is proposing to re—grade this area, and establish a nice buffer between the two projects consisting of a mixture of evergreen trees and deciduous trees,which would greatly enhance this existing a ea. The alternate solution from grading within this 20' buffer area would be to install a 6' to 10' high ret ining wall, which can be seen from the entrance corridor. Regrading the buffer and adding landsc ing is a much better situation for establishing and maintaining a buffer between the(2)development rojects, especially since most of the existing vegetation has been previously impacted with the sidential development We ask that staff and the Commission grant the wai er and authorization for disturbance within the 20' buffer for the development of the Briarwood Gas St ion. The principles of design and planning are better met with the proposed impact and re-establish ent of the buffer than the preserving the sparsely existing vegetation and creating a retaining wall situation that can be viewed from Route 29 entrance corridor. Thank you for considering this request. Reg ds, 1 ( \w iQ� Scott Collins, PE �� 4)6 N.. 1'efe„p r 0-., IZ)L'.4CL ()4 f MX.' 4 Christopher Perez From: John Anderson Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:56 PM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: SDP201300035-Mitigation Plan COMMENT FOR COUNTY-VIEW Sheets 3 and 4 of retaining wall plans dated 7/18/14 show the 6' space between Walls 1 and 2 is reduced to 26"for plantings. Defer to Planning on reducing width of planting strip. Wind-toppled trees' root systems may pull a wall down. Design must preserve integrity of Wall 3 geogrid system. Mike Circeo(design engineer)affirmed need for setback between trees and Wall 3 (conversation, 22 July 2014). A conservative approach to establish (per species) setbacks uses canopy area listed in plant schedule (Minor Site Plan Amendment#3)to calculate a radius-distance for each species. A safety factor of.25 increases distance 25%,from 10' to 12.5' as an example. This approach is in line with design engineer's experience and recommendation (M. Circeo,22- Jul). This wall is immediately adjacent to sidewalk and a high-volume roadway. Will recommend monitoring(soil samples/test of bearing capacity/inspection) by a qualified geotechnical representative during construction to help ensure proper outcome. John C.Anderson.PI. 1 Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 Noir Christopher Perez From: John Anderson Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:16 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Christopher Perez; Glenn Brooks; David Benish Subject: RE: SUB201400066, SDP201300035-Briarwood (Road/Mitigation) kit' 12' is without factor of safety(FS), is not truly conservative. \------,FS"1..25—1.5 increases value to. - 8'from back face of Wall 3 (17.3—20.3'fro ront face) From: John Anderson Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:05 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Christopher Perez; Glenn Brooks; David Benish Subject: SUB201400066, SDP201300035 -Briarwood (Road/Mitigation) Margaret, Thank you for speaking with me! I spoke with Mike Circeo,the geotechnical engineer who designed Redi-rock walls for Briarwood (Walls 1,2,3). We spoke at length after Scott Collins delivered geotechnical design for these walls at a meeting attended by David, me, Wendell Wood, Nena Harrell,Scott Collins, and Adam Long on 7/21. Mike relayed experience of design for another project that did not account for space lost to (12") prism of stone behind each section of wall, depth of block(28"),and compacted (crushed stone) leveling pad (6" projection). Sheets 3 and 4 of plans submitted yesterday show that the 6' space between Walls 1 and 2 is reduced to 26"for plantings(72"—28"—12"—6"=26"). Mike shared his experience with Collins, but was given specific design instruction. Does this affect Planning's review of the Mitigation Plan? Mike also shares view of limiting how near tree plantings should be installed. Considering the life cycle and eventual fate of plants,we must give roots space. Wind-toppled trees' root systems may pull a wall down (M. Circeo). A conservative design might use the largest canopy for species listed in the plant schedule (7-July 2014r.8riarwood- P mendment#3,sheet 2). This approach suggests no tree plantings within 12' of back face of Wa113(within 14�* f e of wall). [452 sf= (22/7)(r')2;r= 11.99']. Does plant spacing shown on sheet 2 allow trees to be planted this close to Wa ? � \ I am not qualified to commenf on ut am thinking of risk. Mike explained that th specified may be cut to install plantings, and that a project of this scale requires in his view(which I share) monitoring (soil samples/test of bearing capacity/installation) by a qualified geotechnical representative during construction to help ensure proper outcome. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your help- ri- i John E.Anderson. PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 Mclntire Road I Charlottesville.VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 Christopher Perez From: John Anderson Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:05 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Christopher Perez; Glenn Brooks; David Benish Subject: SUB201400066, SDP201300035-Briarwood (Road/Mitigation) Margaret, Thank you for speaking with me! I spoke with Mike Circeo,the geotechnical engineer who designed Redi-rock walls for Briarwood (Walls 1,2,3). We spoke at length after Scott Collins delivered geotechnical design for these walls at a meeting attended by David, me, Wendell Wood, Nena Harrell,Scott Collins, and Adam Long on 7/21. Mike relayed experience of design for another project that did not account for space lost to (12") prism of stone behind each section of wall, depth of block(28"), and compacted (crushed stone) leveling pad (6" projection). Sheets 3 and 4 of plans submitted yesterday show that the 6' space between Walls 1 and 2 is reduced to 26"for plantings (72"—28"—12"—6"= 26"). Mike shared his experience with Collins, but was given specific design instruction. Does this affect Planning's review of the Mitigation Plan? Mike also shares view of limiting how near tree plantings should be installed. Considering the life cycle and eventual fate of plants,we must give roots space. Wind-toppled trees' root systems may pull a wall down (M. Circeo). A conservative design might use the largest canopy for species listed in the plant schedule (7-July 2014, Briarwood Site Plan Amendment#3, sheet 2). This approach suggests no tree plantings within 12' of back face of Wa113(within 14.3' of face of wall). [452 sf= (22/7)(r')2; r= 11.99'). Does plant spacing shown on sheet 2 allow trees to be planted this close to Wall 3? I am not qualified to comment on botanical life cycles, but am thinking of risk. Mike explained that the geogrid specified may be cut to install plantings,and that a project of this scale requires in his view(which I share) monitoring(soil samples/test of bearing capacity/installation) by a qualified geotechnical representative during construction to help ensure proper outcome. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your help- John E. =lnderson,PE Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville.VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 Christopher Perez From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 12:08 PM To: Christopher Perez; David Benish Subject: Briarwood mitigation plan, plants, retaining walls John in Engineering just shared with me the retaining wall details he just received for the Briarwood project.These details show geo-grid for both walls. (I will double-check, but this is new since the ARB review.)With the geo-grid and the depth of the blocks shown,there does not appear to be sufficient room for the shrubs shown between the terraced walls, and proposed trees appear to be too close to the various walls. Margaret M.Maliszewski,Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 1