HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800035 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2008-06-06� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
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
REV 1: 24 April 2008
Date of comments:
7 April 2008
REV 1: 6 June 2008
Reviewer:
Phil Custer
REV 1: Amy Pflaum
The Final Site Plan for Old Trail Block 3 has been reviewed. Current Development Engineer staff will
recommend approval of this plan once the following comments have been addressed.
A. Final Site Plan [SDP- 2008 - 00035]
1. On all slopes steeper than 3:1, please specify a low- maintenance groundcover. [DM]
REV 1: Sod is not an acceptable Low Maintenance Ground Cover. Please revise the note on
Sheet S2 to read "...LOW MAINTENANCE GROUND COVER, NON - GRASSED." Also,
please remove the following note at the top of Sheet S -2: 1. ALL PROPOSED AREAS WITH
SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SLOPE SHALL BE SODDED TO PREVENT EROSION.
2. The sidewalk adjacent to the entrance to the pool parking lot from Marlbeck measures to be 4.5ft.
REV 1: Comment addressed, sidewalk is now shown as 5 ft..
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.
REV 1: Comment noted and entrance removed from plan.
4. Please note on the title sheet that this plan amends the downstream drainage of the approved Block
1 site plan (SDP- 2007 - 00144).
REV 1: Comment addressed, note added to Title Sheet.
5. Please move street trees into the planting strip inside the ROW.
REV 1: Comment addressed, trees inside planting strip.
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.
REV 1: Comment addressed, street trees shown on both sides of road.
7. All curb inlet spreads for a storm of 4in/hr intensity must be below 1Oft.
REV 1: The spread for inlet STR -27 continues to be 10.57 ft, however, this is deemed acceptable
because the curb to crown width is 11 ft, therefore, no overtopping is expected to occur.
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.
REV 1: Comment noted.
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
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.
REV 1: Fee submitted 4/24/08.
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.
REV 1: Comment noted, new mass grading plan to match shall be submitted.
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.
REV 1: Comment addressed, existing SWM pond is no longer being utilized 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
entire storm sewer watershed (-17 acres).
REV 1: Block 1 will not drain to this basin, it will continue to drain through an existing
temporary pipe to the basin located behind Block 1. A temporary pipe is proposed from STR 6 to
the sediment basin so that sediment laden flow will not reach the existing SWM pond. Please add
information about this temporary pipe (size, slope, outlet protection) to the plans. It appears that
the temporary pipe may be conflicting with the location of a proposed sanitary sewer manhole. If
the 42" pipe connecting STR 6 to the pond is to be constructed with this site plan, please show it
on Sheet E -3 and indicate that its inlet within STR 6 will be plugged until such time as the
temporary pipe is removed.
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.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
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 ".)
REV 1: Comment addressed, silt fence noted as 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]
REV 1: Comment addressed, one proposed manhole has been moved out of the buffer and
disturbance has been minimized.
16. A bond amount will be computed by the County when the plans have been approved.
REV 1: Comment noted.
17. REV 1: Is there an adequate channel to convey flow from Sediment Basin 2 to the stream?
Albemarle County Community Development
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
D. Road Plan [SDP- 2008 - 00035]
18. VDOT approval is required. Comments will be forwarded to the applicant once comments have
been received.
REV 1: Comment noted.
19. The ROW of Claremont Lane measures to be 5311, not 5411. The planting strip measures to be 3ft
rather than 4ft as shown in the roadway section.
REV 1: Comment addressed, Claremont Lane is not shown with a 55' ROW and 6ft planting
strips.
20. 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]
REV 1: Comment addressed, planting strips are shown as 6ft.
21. Please show all necessary cross drains on the road profiles.
REV 1: Comment addressed.
E. Mass Grading Plan [WPO- 2008 - 00014]
22. The dewatering orifices are not sized to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook.
REV 1: Using the equation in the VESCH, for a 6 -hour drawdown time, engineering staff is
calculating smaller orifice sizes for the sediment basins than you have shown.
23. Please provide a baffle for the eastern diversion dike into Sediment Basin 1.
REV 1: A baffle has been provided in Sediment Basin 1, however, it will not intercept the flow
from the eastern diversion dike, please revise the location of the baffle.