Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200800014 Review Comments Erosion Control Plan 2008-04-07 of ALN, 2 s® _ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Old Trail Village Block 3-Phase A [SDP200800035,WPO200800014] Plan preparer: Collins Engineering fax 245-0300 Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties,LLC fax 245-0300 Plan received date: 22 February 2008 Date of comments: 7 April 2008 Reviewer: Phil Custer The mass grading plan for Old Trail Block 3 has been reviewed and comments have been sent in a separate letter. The site specific erosion and sediment control measures will be reviewed with this site plan and will be considered an amendment to the mass grading plan. A. Final Site Plan [SDP-2008-00035] 1. On all slopes steeper than 3:1,please specify a low-maintenance groundcover. [DM] 2. The sidewalk adjacent to the entrance to the pool parking lot from Marlbeck measures to be 4.5ft. 3. The entrances off of Claremont appear to have been reduced from 20ft to 16ft. Please note that this acceptable for alleys,but if a parking lot is designed in Phase B, a 20ft minimum width is required. 4. Please note on the title sheet that this plan amends the downstream drainage of the approved Block 1 site plan(SDP-2007-00144). 5. Please move street trees into the planting strip inside the ROW. 6. Please show street trees on both sides of the proposed roads. Street trees should be shown on the plan for entire length of the roadway,not just around the Phase A portion of the block. 7. All curb inlet spreads for a storm of 4in/hr intensity must be below l Oft. B. Stormwater Management Plan [WPO-2008-00014] 8. The Lickinghole SWM basin pro-rata fee will be computed once the site plan has been approved. C. Site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [WPO-2008-00014] 9. Please submit a fee of$130 for the erosion and sediment control amendment to the Block 3 mass grading plan. 10. This ESC plan does not appear to match the mass grading plan submitted at approximately the same time: facilities are located in the buffer; traps are shown where basins should be due to the size of the watershed; etc. The two plans should show the same information for the initial phases of the ESC plan. Please refer to my comment letter for the first submittal of the mass grading plan for comments regarding ESC Phase 1 of the Phase 6-Block 3 Phase A plan. 11. The existing SWM pond cannot be used as a sediment basin. Please provide an alternative design for this area. (See comment below). Also,please remove all references to the existing SWM pond to be used as a sediment basin. 12. Engineering review is concerned that sediment-laden water will enter into the existing SWM pond after passing through the inlet protection provided on the plan. Engineering review recommends installing a temporary pipe from structure 6 and outfalling into a sediment basin sized for the Albemm :ounty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 entire storm sewer watershed(-17 acres). 13. Limits of disturbance lines cannot encroach on the"Conservation/Preservation Areas"(shown in Sheet 3 of 9)without amending the rezoning plan. The pond also has a 100ft buffer from its water level that no filling operation can take place in. However,temporary ESC or permanent SWM measures will be allowed within the buffer as long as the disturbance is outside the "Conservation/Preservation Areas"as shown on the ZMA plan. 14. What is the symbol SSF? There is no mention of it in any of the sheets. If the intention of the applicant is to provide"super silt fence"(a chain-linked fence reinforced silt fence),please note that the use of this method is not listed in the VESCH and requires a variance from the program authority. If you wish to leave this method in the plan set,please provide a letter requesting a variance of the standard to Mr. Glenn Brooks. A detail of the method's installation specifications would also be helpful. (Please also note that the wire reinforced fencing, as shown in the VESCH, still receives the call-out"SF".) 15. It appears that the connection from MH-2 to the sanitary sewer main could be made out of the stream buffer if the connection point was closer to MH-7. Disturbance of the stream buffer for public utilities is not exempt if lines could be practically relocated to outside of the stream buffer. [17-319.B.1] 16. A bond amount will be computed by the County when the plans have been approved. D. Road Plan [SDP-2008-00035] 17. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded to the applicant once comments have been received. 18. The ROW of Claremont Lane measures to be 53ft,not 54ft. The planting strip measures to be 3ft rather than 4ft as shown in the roadway section. 19. The minimum planting strip allowed is 6ft. This is a requirement in both the County Code and the Old Trail Code of Development. The horizontal placement of the sidewalks,planting strips,ROW line, and curbing was satisfactory in the second submittal of the preliminary plan. The applicant has since reduced the section. Please see comment#3 from my letter sent 22 January 2008. [14- 422] 20. Please show all necessary cross drains on the road profiles. �.oF AL 1=U COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Project: Old Trail Village Block 3-Mass Grading Plan [WP0200800014] Plan preparer: Collins Engineering fax 245-0300 Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties, LLC fax 245-0300 Plan received date: 22 February 2008 Date of comments: 3 April 2008 Reviewer: Phil Custer The mass grading plan for Old Trail Block 3 has been reviewed. Review comments for the site-ESC plan will be given on a separate letter with the review of the SWM and site plan. The site-ESC plan will be considered an amendment to this mass grading plan and will require an additional amendment fee of$130. Please contact me should you have any questions. 1. Please remove all buildings and infrastructure(storm pipes,ACSA utilities,roadways, sidewalks, curbs,parking lots, etc.)from the mass grading plans. Approval of the mass grading plan cannot be given showing that infrastructure until a site plan has been approved. 2. Approval from the ACSA will be needed to modify the existing structures and increase depths of soil over the main running west to east. Approval of the mass grading plan will be withheld until we receive ACSA approval for the work needed to modify the areas in the existing easements. 3. It appears that the connection from MH-2 to the sanitary sewer main could be made out of the stream buffer if the connection point was closer to MH-7. Disturbance of the stream buffer for public utilities is not exempt if lines could be practically relocated to outside of the stream buffer. Engineering review recommends not showing these submains in this set of plans(please see comment#1). [17-319.B.1] 4. Limits of disturbance lines cannot encroach on the"Conservation/Preservation Areas"(shown in Sheet 3 of 9)without amending the rezoning plan. The pond also has a 100ft buffer from its water level that no filling operation can take place in. However,temporary ESC or permanent SWM measures will be allowed within the buffer as long as the disturbance is outside the "Conservation/Preservation Areas"as shown on the ZMA plan. 5. The watershed to Sediment Basin 1 on sheet ESC-3 is larger in the field than the drainage line indicates on this plan. 6. The existing topography does not show the complete grading for Old Trail Dr. 7. It appears that not all sections of the limits of disturbance are protected. The area by the western construction entrance drains to the south without protection measures. Also,please note that construction entrances are required to drain to a sediment trap or basin. [VESCH] 8. The existing SWM pond cannot be used as a sediment basin. Please provide an alternative design for this area. Please also see comment#4. 9. Please provide a detail for the connection of the 48"barrel of basin 2 to the 24"riser. 10. The dewatering orifices are not sized to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. 11. Silt fence cannot be shown across contours. It appears along Old Trail Dr. from the roundabout to basin 1,a diversion dike would be more appropriate than silt fence. Albemai )unty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 12. Please show dust control and permanent seeding symbols on the area of the fill operation on the western side of Old Trail Dr. 13. Please provide a baffle for the eastern diversion dike into Basin 1. 14. What is the symbol S SF? There is no mention of it in any of the sheets. If the intention of the applicant is to provide"super silt fence"(a chain-linked fence reinforced silt fence),please note that the use of this method is not listed in the VESCH and requires a variance from the program authority. If you wish to leave this method in the plan set,please provide a letter requesting a variance of the standard to Mr. Glenn Brooks. A detail of the method's installation specifications would also be helpful. (Please also note that the wire reinforced fencing, as shown in the VESCH, still receives the call-out"SF".) 15. A bond amount will be computed by the County when the plans have been approved.