HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201300001 Review Comments 2013-01-07 CLARK• NEXSEN
Architecture & Engineering
6160 Kempsville Circle, Suite 200A
Norfolk,VA 23502
P. 757.455.5800
F. 757.455.5638
www.clarknexsen.com
review comments
PROJECT OR REFERENCE: NOTES, COMMENTS AND ACTIONS:
Britts Mountain The following comments were provided by the reviewer and have
been addressed as noted or shown on the plans as requested.
CN REFERENCE NUMBER:
1. This site appears to have a very large drainage area above the
3036.073 project and silt fence may not be adequate to filter the runoff
producing storm event and protect the downstream property.
REVIEWER: Please show the entire drainage area for each sediment control
Max Greene structure for adequate review. Initial investigation appears to
require sediment traps and diversions to protect the site.
DATE: This is not a Storm water Management ordinance comment. This is
April 5, 2013 an Erosion and Sediment Control comment. Please refer to VESCH
3.05 Silt fence for proper installation requirements. Silt fence is
not approved for this application. Plan appears to require "Clean-
water"diversions VESCH 3:09, Temporary Diversion Dike installed
above the site to reduce the drainage area and length so that silt
fence meets the minimum requirements of VESCH 3.05, Silt Fence.
A temporary diversion dike will direct the upstream water
around the project site. The plans and narrative have been
revised to reflect the changes.
2. The staging area in the shape of a Cul-de-sac is over half critical
slopes and may require grading to utilize the area. No grading is
shown at this time, however silt fence is shown. Should the
contractor disturb areas not approved with this plan then a delay in
the project may occur while an amendment to the plan is reviewed
for compliance.
Response implies existing topography is not accurate. Please show
accurate existing topography or certify that the topography as
shown is Accurate.
Additional topography has been obtained and is shown on
the plans.
3. Please show the limits of proposed disturbance on the plan sheets.
FILE: This item appears adequately addressed at this time.
m:\blank forms\new forms\updated Comment acknowledged.
02-2010\norfolk v2\ca forms\pco
review comments - norfolk.docx
Page 1 of 3
CLARK. N IxsEN
Architecture & Engineering COMMISSION NUMBER: 3036.073 DATE: 2/14/13
rfi response
4. Please show the limits of Construction Road stabilization on the
plan sheets.
This item is not completely addressed, however will be acceptable
at this time, and addressed in the field.
Comment acknowledged.
5. Access road appears to exceed 20% slope. Please show the
percent of grade for the access road.
This item appears adequately addressed at this time.
Comment acknowledged.
6. Stormwater management states the "slightly increased flow will be
intercepted by the silt fence". Please explain how the proposed silt
fence will be utilized as a permanent structure for Stormwater
management?
There are no SWM (17-300+) requirement being imposed on this
project at this time. Please remove comment about silt fence for
SWM.
The reference to silt fence for SWM has been removed.
Page 2 of 3
CLARK• NEXSEN
Architecture& Engineering COMMISSION NUMBER: 3036.073 DATE: 2/14/13
rfi response
4
f
ar,
1
L .
4
4 w ; t t � t
fi
Page 3 of 3
`k0A
illll!'
III 101
�'IRGINZP
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: Verizon-"Britts Mountain"Houchens Property WPO201300001
Plan preparer: Clark-Nexsen Architecture&Engineering [fax 202-461-3266]
Owner or rep.: Houchens, Charles Melton or Wanda S
Plan received date: 14 February 2013
Previous 8 January 2013
Date of comments: 15 March 2013
Previous 31 January 2013
Reviewer: Max Greene
The Water Protection Plans(WPO201300001) submitted 14 February 2013 have received
Engineering Review and do not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for
approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval:
1. This site appears to have a very large drainage area above the project and silt fence may not be
adequate to filter the runoff producing storm event and protect the downstream property. Please
show the entire drainage area for each sediment control structure for adequate review. Initial
investigation appears to require sediment traps and diversions to protect the site. This is not a
Stormwater Management ordinance comment. This is an Erosion and Sediment Control
comment. Please refer to VESCH 3.05 Silt fence for proper installation requirements. Silt
fence is not approved for this application. Plan appears to require"Clean-water" diversions
VESCH 3.09,Temporary Diversion Dike installed above the site to reduce the drainage area
and length so that silt fence meets the minimum requirements of VESCH 3.05, Silt Fence.
2. The staging area in the shape of a Cul-de-sac is over half critical slopes and may require grading to
utilize the area. No grading is shown at this time,however silt fence is shown. Should the
contractor disturb areas not approved with this plan then a delay in the project may occur while an
amendment to the plan is reviewed for compliance. Response implies existing topography is not
accurate. Please show accurate existing topography or certify that the topography as shown
is Accurate.
3. t'le,a,e i.o the Limit,of propose.d disturbance on the plan sheet-,. This item appears adequately
addressed at this time.
4. 1 lease. slime the !Ur "vlstrunon Road sc'an sneci This item is not
completely addressed, however will be acceptable at this time,and addressed in the field.
5. a a.4 "()i1Cl €i 'i.,'; 2( ,op" P : A i,....111 71, road.
This item appears adequately addressed at this time.
6. Stormwater management states the"slightly increased flow will be intercepted by the silt fence".
Please explain how the proposed silt fence will be utilized as a permanent structure for Stormwater
management? There are no SWM(17-300+) requirement being imposed on this project at
this time. Please remove comment about silt fence for SWM.
Once these comments have been addressed,please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and
narratives to Current Development Engineering.
igineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these
review comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext.3283 or email
mgreene iPalbemarle.org to schedule an appointment.
[17-204.f] An application for an erosion and sediment control plan that requires modifications,terms,or conditions to be
included in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the
omitted modifications,terms or conditions within six(6)months after the owner is informed of the omitted information as
provided under paragraph(B).
_,1.A1,:1\ • N 1 ` 1 ,`
Architecture& Engineering
6160 Kempsville Circle, Suite 200A
Norfolk, VA 23502
P. 757.455.5800
F. 757.455.5638
www.clarknexsen.com
review comments
PROJECT OR REFERENCE: NOTES, COMMENTS AND ACTIONS:
Britts Mountain The following comments were provided by the reviewer and have
been addressed as noted or shown on the plans as requested.
CN REFERENCE NUMBER:
1. This site appears to have a very large drainage area above the
3036.073 project and silt fence may not be adequate to filter the runoff
producing storm event and protect the downstream property.
REVIEWER: Please show the entire drainage area for each sediment control
Max Greene structure for adequate review. Initial investigation appears to
require sediment traps and diversions to protect the site.
DATE: The overall drainage subcatchment area is very large and
February 14, 2013 was analyzed primarily for outfall adequacy. The disturbed
area is less than 1 (one) acre and according to WPO Section
17-314, F.4 control of flow and velocity is exempt from this
requirement. In compliance with erosion control however,
we provide silt fence and analyzed the disturbance area as
the drainage area. Since no development is proposed
upstream there would be no impact of the upstream flow.
Calculations are provided.
2. The staging area in the shape of a Cul-de-sac is over half critical
slopes and may require grading to utilize the area. No grading is
shown at this time, however silt fence is shown. Should the
contractor disturb areas not approved with this plan then a delay in
the project may occur while an amendment to the plan is reviewed
for compliance.
The proposed staging area is within an existing leveled
gravel area. At the time of the topo survey, this area was
being altered by the property owner as a debris stockpile
area. Therefore the existing contours shown on the plans
do not accurately portray the current conditions of this area.
Please see attached recent photo of the proposed staging
area for your reference. After the topo survey was
performed, since then the property owner has filled this
area, leveled and re-surfaced with gravel at an approximate
FILE: elevation of 585'. Plan has been revised to show minimal
m:\blank forms\new forms\updated grading of this area with silt fence and limits of disturbance
02-2010\norfolk v2\ca forms\pco
review comments - norfolk.docx adjustment.
3. Please show the limits of proposed disturbance on the plan sheets.
The limits of disturbance has been added to the plans.
4. Please show the limits of Construction Road stabilization on the
plan sheets.
Page 1 of 3
CI ARK* 1: ' l f.ti? `"' `'•
Architecture & Engineerin g COMMISSION NUMBER: 3036.073 DATE: 2/14/13
rfi response
Stabilization of the construction road is limited to 10%
maximum grade. The typical access road provided was
graded to a maximum of 20% due to existing topography
constraints. Erosion control stabilization matting along the
graded side of the hill will be provided.
5. Access road appears to exceed 20% slope. Please show the
percent of grade for the access road.
The access road grade is labeled as requested. Beginning
portion of proposed access road is within a critical slope.
However, due to existing conditions and close proximity to
property line, no grading is proposed to improve the slope
percentage. Howver, an alternate route has been pointed
out plan sheet C-2B pointing to the existing gravel driveway
which is currently in use to access the property owner's
dwelling.
6. Stormwater management states the "slightly increased flow will be
intercepted by the silt fence". Please explain how the proposed silt
fence will be utilized as a permanent structure for Stormwater
management?
Silt fence is provided for temporary measures of erosion
control. The increase of 0.24 cfs for the 2-year storm will
not likely result in significant impact downstream. As
stated above, the WPO states this site is exempt from the
requirement.
Page 2 of 3
CLARK• NEXSEN
Architecture & Engineering COMMISSION NUMBER: 3036.073 DATE: 2/14/13
rfi response
��1�',� 1 fry ., {
VI,
}{ . ks
r
1>
.
w
7
• „rte;_ ,
Y
.rJ" «
x .s .. A ,, `,.,,
a. a"
\ '
,• AWN
Er
e.
. ilk�37A Ik
tk :: .ty . \
Page 3 of 3
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: Verizon- “Britts Mountain” Houchens Property WPO201300001
Plan preparer: Clark-Nexsen Architecture & Engineering [fax 202-461-3266]
Owner or rep.: Houchens, Charles Melton or Wanda S
Plan received date: 8 January 2013
Date of comments: 31 January 2013
Reviewer: Max Greene
The Water Protection Plans (WPO201300001) submitted 7 January 2013 have received
Engineering Review and do not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for
approval. Please adequately address the following comments for final approval:
1. This site appears to have a very large drainage area above the project and silt fence may not be
adequate to filter the runoff producing storm event and protect the downstream property. Please
show the entire drainage area for each sediment control structure for adequate review. Initial
investigation appears to require sediment traps and diversions to protect the site.
2. The staging area in the shape of a Cul-de-sac is over half critical slopes and may require grading to
utilize the area. No grading is shown at this time, however silt fence is shown. Should the
contractor disturb areas not approved with this plan then a delay in the project may occur while an
amendment to the plan is reviewed for compliance.
3. Please show the limits of proposed disturbance on the plan sheets.
4. Please show the limits of Construction Road stabilization on the plan sheets.
5. Access road appears to exceed 20% slope. Please show the percent of grade for the access road.
6. Stormwater management states the “slightly increased flow will be intercepted by the silt fence”.
Please explain how the proposed silt fence will be utilized as a permanent structure for Stormwater
management?
Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and
narratives to Current Development Engineering.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email mgreene@albemarle.org to
schedule an appointment.
[17-204.f] An application for an erosion and sediment control plan that requires modifications, terms, or conditions to be
included in order for it to be approved shall be deemed to be withdrawn if the owner fails to submit a revised plan addressing the
omitted modifications, terms or conditions within six (6) months after the owner is informed of the omitted information as
provided under paragraph (B).
File: CDDE1_esc_MRG_Verizon- Britts Mountain, Houchens Property.doc