HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500096 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2006-10-24 •
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: SDP200500096—Dennis Enterprises,Minor amendment
Plan preparer: Mr. Kelly Strickland, Rivanna Engineering[fax(434)984-8863]
Owner or rep.: Mr. Dennis Minetos [fax(434)977-0106]
Date received: 13 September 2005
Revd:9 Jan 2006
Rev.2; 3 Apr 2006
Rev.3:23 May 2006
Rev.4: 16 October 2006
Date of Comment: 19 September 2005 F_^
Revd: 6 Feb 2006 C 3 U
Rev.2: 3 May 2006
Rev.3: 7 Jul 2006
Rev.4:24 October 2006
Lead Engineer: Max Greene,Glenn Brooks(Rev.1, Rev.2),Mark Chambers(Rev.3), Max
Greene (Rev. 4)
The Minor amendment plan for Dennis Enterprise, Inc. received on 16 October 2006 has been
reviewed. The engineering review for current development does not recommend approval of the
minor amendment plan until the following items are addressed:
1. Plan will be updated to correspond to what was constructed under the previously
approved grading permit. A basic as-built survey should suffice showing what was
constructed. Many inconsistencies were evident upon a field/site visit(i.e. DI,asphalt
Drainage diversion, BMP flow bypass channel, lighting,retaining walls,etc.).
Rev.1:The topography on the as-built survey is incomplete at the property boundaries
and in the area of the building. Topography is required up to 50'off-site,per 18-32.5.6d.
This plan does not compare well to the latest approved site plan, signed on 5/22/03. The
drainage, channels, retaining walls, stormwater management,parking islands, and buffer
are not as approved. All discrepancies must be corrected by inclusion on this site plan.
In addition, a stormwater management amendment, application, maps, and computations
must be provided It also appears as though a waiver is required for disturbances to the
buffer at the rear property line.
Rev.2:A site visit has confirmed that the site plan still does not reflect field conditions in
many areas, including the BMP's and the rear property line buffer. It does not appear as
though a serious attempt has been made to make the plan reflect field conditions. Our
meetings regarding this plan appear to have been undermined by inaccuracies and on-
going construction activities.
Rev.3:Per your response letter, we have not received a waiver request.
' I
• Rev.4:Per. Bill rritz and Jan Sprinkle no waiver is required.
2. Please correct all notes on the plan. Many notes refer to new construction that may have
been installed with previous amendments.
Rev.1: Comment addressed
3. All new construction including roof drains will flow to BMP. Grading/re-grading may be
required in the existing parking area to redirect storm flows to BMP.
Rev.1: Comment not addressed A more accurate plan is first necessary per comment 1.
Rev.2: Comment not addressed A more accurate plan is first necessary per comment 1.
Rev.3: Comment not addressed See stormwater management plan comment.
The previously approved site plan does not appear to have been adequately adhered to and should
be corrected with this amendment.
Rev.2: Stormwater Management Plan(WPO200600026)
Rev.2: The stormwater management plan received on 3 Apr 2006 has been reviewed This plan
appears to be a copy of the site plan. See comments above. The spreadsheet is incorrect, and the
drainage area cannot be confirmed on the current inaccurate plan. The entire site must be
analyzed, with necessary redesigns, as it evident from our site visit that there is not a functioning
BMP on this site. Please demonstrate that the entire site meets the requirements of the Water
Protection Ordinance.
Rev.3 Comment not addressed:Failure to follow the approved plan during the construction
process has resulted in significantly different stormwater drainage patterns than was designed
As a result, the sites storm water management infrastructure is not functioning as intended and
the site does not meet the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance. One of the following
actions is required:
a. The site can be reconstructed in a manner that the stormwater management
infrastructure functions as intended by the approved plan. This will require that each
BMP recieves the drainage area shown on the drainage area map(sheet DM-2) of the
approved "MS-19 Calculations For Dennis Enterprises, Inc. Site"dated:March 12,
2003 (copy of calculations available, 296-5832 ext 3025).
b. The applicant can submit an amended SWM plan that provides equivalent or greater flow
attenuation at each respective outlet and equivalent or greater pollutant removal for the
site overall.
The "as built"plan you submitted revealed that the crest of the emergency spillway for BMP-1
was installed at approximately elevation 453'and therefore will not function. The approved plan
calls for it to be at 448.8. The emergency spillway must be corrected in the field
The "as built"plan you submitted revealed that the hand rail for the top of the retaining wall
around BMP-1 has not been installed This is a hazardous condition and should be addressed
immediately.
Rev.4: The SWM basin is not constructed properly according to the approved plans #1782. The
bottom of the basin was to be 444.5 and the crest of the riser 447.6. The riser was to have 2-0.8'
diameter orifices at elevation 445.8. This plan does not appear to address the discrepancy in the
site. Please, the basin will be reconstructed per either the approved plans or show how the basin
can be constructed to meet the previously approved criteria. Currently the site is in violation of
the Water Protection Orainance because it does not appear to have the storage required. (If the
elevation of the basin filter medium is lowered, the filter medium depth will have to be adjusted
accordingly to retain the minimum thickness, etc..)
4. There is no provision for the under-drain of the proposed frlterra.
Rev.4: The outlet appears to drain into the adjacent parking lot or into the new sanitary sewer
line to be installed with the Spooner property improvements. Both scenarios are not approvable.
This office suggests running the outlet pipe into existing stormwater structure.
Copy:file SDP200500096
Rob Heide,Zoning Enforcement Manager