Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500001 Review Comments 2005-05-10gi 7111tYit COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Hollymead Town Center, Area B, minor amendment for retaining wall SDP200500001) Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Regency Centers, John Fitzpatrick [fax (703) 288 -4260] Plan received date: 11 Jan 2005, (Rev.1) 1 Apr 2005, (Rev.2) 20 Apr 2005, (Rev.3) 9 May 2005 Date of comments: 18 Jan 2005, (Rev.1) 18 Apr 2005, (Rev.2) 27 Apr 2007, (Rev.3) 10 May 2005 Lead Engineer:Glenn Brooks The site plan amendment has been reviewed. Engineering approval is granted, with the condition as stated in the third revision for comment 7. Approval of the minor amendment will be recommended to the County Planner, Francis MacCall. 1. Please provide easements for off -site grading. It is our understanding that this wall is being proposed to avoid off -site grading, to which the neighboring property owner has objected. Rev.1: Please provide reference points for the topography used on the plan. It is acknowledged that Mark Graham gave permission to use the approved proposed grading from the erosion control plan for this area, however that plan is at a much smaller scale, with different property boundaries, and there was no way to match that plan to this one to verify the topography was the same. Rev 2: Thank you for the 1"=100' scale molar to lay over the mass grading plan. Of course, it would have been better to enlarge the mass grading plan to the 1"=30' scale of the site plan amendment. Using the information provided, it appears the grades do not match in all areas, however the errors appear to create a wall taller than necessary. It is noted that the areas ofproposed grading on the site plan amendment were not legible at 100' scale. It is also noted that the contours on each of these plans do not meet the accuracy requirements of 18- 32.6.6h, though permission has been given to use the mass grading plan. Rev.3: Comments addressed. 2. The batter, or vertical off -set for the wall does not appear to be accommodated on the plan view. Rev.1: Comment addressed. 3. Please provide a typical section for the wall. Rev.1: Continent addressed. 4. Please relate the plan view to the profile /elevation view by stationing or other identification. The profile /elevation is currently illegible. Rev.1: Comment addressed. 5. Please indicate how drainage structure ST -16D is to be accommodated. It appears to need relocation. Rev.1: The removal of this manhole with this revision leaves a pipe end 12' underground, and under reinforcing fabrics for the retaining wall and reinforced fill. This does not seem to be a reasonable allowance for off site connection. Please provide a reasonable allowance for off-site connection and include the easement on the plan. This was shown for this structure and for structure ST -12E on the approved site plan. (Structure ST -12E appears adequate and does not require any revision. I use it here as an example, with the easement allowing connection, which was on the originally approved site Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 plant, and should be included on this plan.)Ch.2: The 22' deep manhole connection provided will require iltalargereaseChapter11. easement See Design ManualRev.3: Comment addressed6. Rev.1: Please provide a match -line. The creation of two frames in this revisionduplicationontheplan.ston has created excessive7. Rev. l : The road referred to as Main Street in the other development laneliminatedwiththisrevision. Please show Main Street to the property line. Aswheretheroadterminatesinserviceentrancestothecommercialbuildings, P a determination would s seems to have been have to be made by the Agent and the Zoning Administrator that it is in general currently shown, rezoning, Rev.2: The detail provided with this revision does not appear g al conformity with the road, ltol-firlfzdfillll the obligation to build the ortionr on tlero to provide for thee eadjacentpbaton not build p the road construction irp P h made withth the rezoning. ghg. Th e portion P s revisions on this property. The plan view provided on the approved side plan 1z sslto iagrading andreference Rev, 3: Conziizent addressed. Please note, approval °phis plan is contingent Oil the 01Vile S granting wnr below for the construction access easements as noted on the plan in order to continue Mtothevariousstorntsewers.aln Street and connect i oti .a1, J N COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Hollymead Town Center, Area B, minor amendment for retaining wall SDP200500001) Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Regency Centers, John Fitzpatrick [fax (703) 288 -4260] Plan received date: 11 Jan 2005, (Rev.1) 1 Apr 2005, (Rev.2) 20 Apr 2005 Date of comments: 18 Jan 2005, (Rev.1) 18 Apr 2005, (Rev.2) 27 Apr 2007 Lead Engineer:Glenn Brooks The site plan amendment has been reviewed. Approval can be recommended when the following items are satisfactorily addressed: 1. Please provide easements for off -site grading. It is our understanding that this wall is being proposed to avoid off -site grading, to which the neighboring property owner has objected. Rev.l: Please provide reference points for the topography used on the plan. It is acknowledged that Mark Graham gave permission to use the approved proposed grading from the erosion control plan for this area, however that plan is at a much smaller scale, with different property boundaries, and there was no way to match that plan to this one to verify the topography was the same. Rev 2: Thank you for the 1 " =100' scale n to lay over the mass grading plan. Of course, it would have been better to enlarge the mass grading plan to the 1"=30' scale of the site plan amendment. Using the information provided, it appears the grades do not match in all areas, however the errors appear to create a wall taller than necessary. It is noted that the areas ofproposed grading on the site plan amendment were not legible at 100'scale. It is also noted that the contours on each of these plans do not meet the accuracy requirements of 18- 32.6.6h, though permission has been given to use the mass grading plan. 2. The batter, or vertical off -set for the wall does not appear to be accommodated on the plan view. Rev.1: Comment addressed. 3. Please provide a typical section for the wall. Rev.1: Comment addressed. 4. Please relate the plan view to the profile /elevation view by stationing or other identification. The profile /elevation is currently illegible. Rev.1: Comment addressed. 5, Please indicate how drainage structure ST -16D is to be accommodated. It appears to need relocation. Rev.1: The removal of this manhole with this revision leaves a pipe end 12' underground, and under reinforcing fabrics for the retaining wall and reinforced fill. This does not seem to be a reasonable allowance for off -site connection. Please provide a reasonable allowance for off -site connection and include the easement on the plan. This was shown for this structure and for structure ST -12E on the approved site plan. (Structure ST -12E appears adequate and does not require any revision. I use it here as an example, with the easement allowing connection, which was on the originally approved site plan, and should be included on this plan.) Rev.2: The 22' deep manhole connection provided will require a larger easement. See Design Manual Chapter 11. 6. Rev.1: Please provide a match -line. The creation of two frames in this revision has created excessive duplication on the plan. 7. Rev.1: The road referred to as Main Street in the other development plans seems to have been eliminated with this revision. Please show Main Street to the property line. As currently shown, where the road terminates in service entrances to the commercial buildings, a determination would have to be made by the Agent and the Zoning Administrator that it is in general conformity with the rezoning. Rev.2: The detail provided with this revision does not appear to provide for future continuation of the road, nor fulfill the obligation to build the portion on this property made with the rezoning. The adjacent property owner could not continue the road construction without substantial grading and revisions on this property. The plan view provided on the approved site plan is shown below for reference. 17'''f..7 r , f aB r './ ', I. 'i lillairjr . r1,12 ...Pr— :, _._ 1,111111 T+ AliwnIfHrFO/r!i!/f 1 Brittts'rcRy t B' 1JA1, r t.B33 SF'p, 7'4 I1 li 1 4B r 1 ti, c iiii 0Y AL% J'i 1- IRGo F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Hollymead Town Center, Area B, minor amendment for retaining wall SDP200500001) Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Regency Centers, John Fitzpatrick [fax (703) 288 -4260] Plan received date: 11 Jan 2005, (Rev.1) 1 Apr 2005 Date of comments: 18 Jan 2005, (Rev.1) 18 Apr 2005 Lead Engineer:Glenn Brooks The site plan amendment has been reviewed. Approval can be recommended when the following items are satisfactorily addressed: 1. Please provide easements for off -site grading. It is our understanding that this wall is being proposed to avoid off -site grading, to which the neighboring property owner has objected. Rev.1: Please provide reference points for the topography used 011 the plan. It is acknowledged that Mark Graham gave permission to use the approved proposed grading from the erosion control plan for this area, however that plan is at a hutch smaller scale, with different property boundaries, and there was no way to match that plan to this one to verifi the topography was the same. 2. The batter, or vertical off -set for the wall does not appear to be accommodated on the plan view. Rev.1. Continent addressed. 3. Please provide a typical section for the wall. Rev.1: Continent addressed. 4. Please relate the plan view to the profile /elevation view by stationing or other identification. The profile /elevation is currently illegible. Rev.1: Continent addressed. 5. Please indicate how drainage structure ST -16D is to be accommodated. It appears to need relocation. Rev.1: The removal of this manhole with this revision leaves a pipe end 12' underground, and under reinforcing fabrics for the retaining wall and reinforced fill. This does not seem to be a reasonable allowance for offsite connection. Please provide a reasonable allowance for off site connection and include the easement on the plan. This was shown for this structure and for structure ST -12E on the approved site plan. (Structure ST -12E appears adequate and does not require any revision. I use it here as an example, with the easement allowing connection, which was on the originally approved site plan, and should be included on this plan.) 6. Rev.1: Please provide a match -line. The creation of two frames in this revision has created excessive duplication on the plan. 7. Rev.1: The road referred to as Main Street in the other development plans seems to have been eliminated with this revision. Please show Main Street to the property line. As currently shown, where the road terminates in service entrances to the commercial buildings, a determination would have to be made by the Agent and the Zoning Administrator that it is in general conformity with the rezoning. IN X ES VI ) eV is; F 1 (7NV COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project:Hollymead Town Center, Area B, minor amendment for retaining wall SDP200500001) Plan preparer:Rivanna Engineering [fax 984 -8863] Owner or rep.:Hollymead Town Center LLC [no fax given] Plan received date: 11 Jan 2005 Date of comments: 18 Jan 2005 Lead Engineer:Glenn Brooks The site plan amendment has been reviewed. Approval can be recommended when the following items are satisfactorily addressed: 1. Please provide easements for off -site grading. It is our understanding that this wall is being proposed to avoid off -site grading, to which the neighboring property owner has objected. 2. The batter, or vertical off -set for the wall does not appear to be accommodated on the plan view. 3. Please provide a typical section for the wall. 4. Please relate the plan view to the profile /elevation view by stationing or other identification. The profile /elevation is cun illegible. 5. Please indicate how drainage structure ST -16D is to be accommodated. It appears to need relocation.