The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP201900025 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2019-07-10COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Site Plan review Project: Lowes & Floor Fashions — Final Site Plan /Major Amendment Plan preparer: Tim Miller, Meridian Planning Group /440 Premier Circle, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22901 [ tmiller(a)meridianwbe.com ] Owner or rep.: Ryder Enterprises LLC, P.O. Box 6778, Charlottesville, VA 22906 Plan received date: 21 May 2019 Date of comments: 10 Jul 2019 Reviewer: John Anderson Project Coordinator: Christopher Perez SDP2019-00025 1. C-001 a. Please provide Tier 4 groundwater assessment for existing private wells (17-1000). b. Revise plan title to include ref. to SDP2019-00025. c. Application includes proposed underground WWTP (DEQ permit VA0092720; 7/6/15) with permitted capacity 0.015 MGD. Please clarify WWTP capacity relative to 400 GPD /site acre, which, for a 6.59 Ac. site =2,636 GPD, or WWTP capacity at /near 0.0027 MGD. d. Respond to Planning and Zoning comments. (to avoid overlap) e. Provide WPO /VSMP Application. f. Provide off -site easements if required to support design. g. Coordinate with VDOT any request or requirement to modify existing culverts beneath Rt. 250 to convey untreated effluent, in event of WWTP upset that may discharge to state right-of-way. h. Furnish U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stream determination for drainage feature at proposed 6" Sanitary line (WWTP effluent) outfall located on residue of TMP #794P north of Rt. 250. i. WPO must be approved prior to site plan approval. 2. C-101 a. Show /label stream buffer. b. Show /label critical slopes. c. Note: Include narrative or notes specifying existing septic field decommissioning requirements; outline coordination with VDEQ required to abandon a septic field. d. Provide additional contour labels. e. Review note: If proposed /permitted WWTP is not constructed, it appears there is sufficient space downgradient of existing well on residue of TMP 794A to construct a new septic field beneath pavement at Ex. 41,450 SF 2-story building. 3. C-102: Label critical slopes. 4. C-201 a. Provide narrative describing effect of proposed new SWM basin on WWTP effluent discharge, and vice versa. b. Geometry of proposed new SWM basin appears atypical; it may not meet DEQ BMP Clearinghouse standards. Please reference Part IIB SWM basin design standard. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 c. Revise parking space /sidewalk design to match a permissible option; ref. ACDSM, P. 17; link: http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/community development/fon-ns/design s tandards manual/Albemarle_ County_Design Standards Manual _2015-04-25_draft.pdf 6. Parking dimensions; the following graphics is helpful in understanding the zoning ordinance parking dimensions; 6"cmb 13puking spares 2' Yo face of b—per black - 6"rmb 2'1Nk - 16' patkme spaces ..M." A, d. Label sidewalk width on residue parcel, TMP 794A. e. Provide additional information required to compare proposed new underground wastewater treatment facility (WWTP) with DEQ permit VA0092720. Engineering should confirm WWTP design specific to SDP2019-00025 is identical to (or within parameters of) WWTP permitted design. f In email dated June 25, 2019 9:02 AM, DEQ Valley Regional Office staff writes: 'As part of the Application for a CTC ("Certificate to Construct"), an Engineer's Certification Statement Signature is required. Projects are no longer reviewed by DEQ for compliance with the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment [SCAT] Regulations. It is the responsibility of a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to certify that the design adheres to the design requirements of the Sewage Collection and Treatment Regulations.... An application for a CTC for Ryder Enterprises WWTP has not been received by DEQ' [emphasis added]. Please provide written correspondence with DEQ that this information has been reviewed and accepted by DEQ (Richmond or Valley Regional Office, or State Water Control Board). g. Engineering recommends maintenance protocols /procedures, especially in event of bypass /upset, for the new proposed underground wastewater treatment facility. Proposed WWTP effluent discharge point is a swale north of Rt. 250 with zero discernable flow, at times (photos available). An upset condition could have down -gradient impact south of U.S. Rt. 250. Impact to adjacent parcels appears a possibility during malfunction /bypass unless adequate protocols or design features limit likelihood of offsite impact. Engineering recommends procedures /protocols submitted with state WWTP application be included with site plan. h. Symbols without legend are confusing; provide legend to define symbols. i. Show /label Rt. 250 public right-of-way, south of Rt. 250. j. Label Rt. 250 right-of-way, north of Rt. 250. 5. C-202 Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 a. Show critical slopes. b. Avoid critical slopes. Engineering recommends Applicant provide shared access easement to Lot 1 (north half of residue of TMP 794A). Note: A critical slopes waiver request is under review. 6. C-203 a. Label storm drain pipes at existing /proposed entrances on Hunters Way. Ensure plan includes pipe profiles and computations for these pipes. Ensure correlation, this sheet and C-300, C-301. b. Label lampposts. c. Label Rt. 250 RW, south side of road. d. Provide drainage calculations that show existing culverts beneath Rt. 250 can accommodate Qio design event as well as proposed WWTP max. discharge volume, should peak flows coincide. e. Triangle symbols are confusing; provide legend to define. f. Proposed new private 6" sanitary discharge appears to lie in or just beyond WPO stream buffer. Review of 17-600 does not list private WWTP discharge to stream buffer as a type improvement or activity exempt, authorized, or allowed in a stream buffer. Please share design perspective on private WWTP effluent discharge to a stream buffer. g. Label begin -end structures for New 15 " HDPE crossing `new 6" sanitary'. 7. C-204 a. Show /label critical slopes. A grading plan cannot be evaluated without knowing limits of critical slopes. b. Provide LD-204 (inlet design). c. Provide LD-229 (storm drain design). d. Label yard grate inlet structure. Provide profile, unless provided. e. At riprap apron at outfall structure 10 and MH-1 Str 14, design intent is unclear. Provide SWM basin and additional storm drain profile detail to clarify design intent at this location. 8. C-300 a. Show any additional storm line tie-in at Str. 14. Also, item 7.e, above. b. Detail 3: Show 6" sanitary line in profile, and storm pipe — San. Line separation at this location. c. Provide note requiring 95% compaction for VDOT ES-1 in fill section. d. Detail 1: show `new 6" sanitary" in profile view (WWTP effluent discharge). e. Provide profile for SWM basin, relative to Detail 1. f. Label /title all profiles for ease of reference. 9. C-301 a. Detail 2: Provide VDOT ES-1 for each pipe shown in this detail. b. Show downstream conveyance for storm runoff once it outfalls Str. 16, 17, 10; that is, show SWM basin outfall. Correlate with these structures. Please clarify design intent. 10. C-302 a. Symbols without legend are confusing; provide legend to define symbols. b. Provide complete (non -generic) retaining wall design. Ref. Final Site Plan Checklist (county website), Grading, item 6. Also, please see Retaining Wall plan checklist (county website). c. Provide guardrail for parking spaces adjacent to retaining wall. Please see Retaining Wall plan checklist, Plans, item 2. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —0069 Thank you SDP2019-00025 Lowes and Floor Fashions Major 071019