Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600079 Review Comments Major Amendment, Preliminary Plan 2008-06-12*-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Francis MacCall, Current Development planning review From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 12 June 2008 Subject: Berkmar Business Park (SDP200600079) Before Engineering can recommend preliminary approval to the site plan, the following comments must be addressed: 1. Upon a field visit to the site by County Engineering, the channel between the UVA Credit Union and the site appears to be a perennial stream (beginning directly below the culvert outlet of Berkmar Drive). Also, there appears to be another perennial stream between the site and the Kegler's property (beginning at a spring on the property line: the fence at elevation 482, 165' N of the site property corner). A stream assessment should be provided to determine whether or not the streams are perennial. If the streams are perennial, there will be a 100' stream buffer on the banks of both sides of the stream. This would significantly alter the permitted development on the site. 2. In regards the spring on the property line near the fence, the existing spring may have been originally located further up within the site (based on looking at old topo) and was french - drained to its current location. It could be located between the fence and existing go -kart building, or even higher up. You may want to field locate the spring. 3. Upon a field visit to the site, the existing topography does not appear to match the plans. For example, the existing bumper boat pond has been removed and filled in. Please provide accurate existing topography. 4. Proposed critical disturbance is shown in potential stream buffer areas. Engineering recommends delaying pursuit of a critical slopes waiver until all stream buffer issues have been resolved. Engineering cannot recommend approval of a critical slopes waiver until the stream buffer issue is resolved. 5. Not all critical slope disturbances shown are man made critical slopes. A critical slopes waiver is needed for the proposed grading for the dumpster pad within critical slopes below contour 496. It appears that this critical slopes disturbance could be avoided by altering the layout of the dumpster pad. Also, a critical slopes waiver is necessary for any grading on first 20 feet on the Kegler's property within critical slopes. 6. Please show the critical slopes shaded on the grading plans for clarity. Other than the slopes mentioned in comment #4, the remainder appear to be man-made (shown on a previously approved site plan), but it is difficult to tell. All critical slopes shown as created by a previously approved site plan do not require a critical slopes waiver. 7. Many critical slope areas are not properly shaded on the plans. There appears to be a large area on the western portion of the site not shown properly. 8. The grading in the western corner of the site for proposed contours 502 and 504 is confusing and does not appear to be necessary. 9. The grading in the eastern corner of the site for proposed contour 480 is confusing. Either grading is cut off or the proposed grades do not tie into existing grades. Show all proposed grading on the grading plan. Also, existing topography shown 50' beyond all proposed grading is required on the grading plans. 10. Grading is shown within the existing SWM facility. Any grading within the facility will require Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 updated SWM plans and calculations for the basin. 11. All pipe outlets and stormwater facility outlets require adequate channels tying into the streams /channels below in addition to outlet protection. Providing only outlet protection is inadequate. For example, when existing outlet OF -1 was constructed, no out letting ditch was provided, only outlet protection was installed, and as a result all of the outlet protection has blown out into the channel below and there are now erosion problems occurring in this area. 12. The proposed plans specify wetlands to be filled over and removed. Engineering could not find wetlands in the location specified on the plans during a field visit to the site. Possibly the wetlands are located in the area where the existing spring is located? Please clarify. 13. Easements, or at a minimum, letters of intent are required for all offsite work. It appears easements are needed from the UVA Credit Union, Lowes, and Kegler's. 14. Please provide an interconnection to TMP 45 -112. 15. Please provide removal rate calculations and drainage area maps for each BMP structure. Will the proposed SWM facility be a biofilter? The plans do not specify. 16. It appears that the existing Kegler's detention basin is designed to detain this site up to a C -value of 0.75 for TMP 45 -112, 112G, and 112GL Any development beyond 0.75 must be handled with additional detention. 17. The proposed sidewalks south of building 1 and east of the existing building are shown at a cross - slope of 20 -25 %. This does not appear to be safe. 18. Please provide a benchmark for topography. 19. Please provide traffic generation figures. Before Engineering can recommend approval to the final site plan, the following comments must be addressed: 20. Guardrail is required for all parking areas adjacent to steep slopes or drop offs. 21. Any retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height must specify safety railing. 22. The 5 proposed spaces south of the existing building are only shown at 17.5' in depth. The spaces must maintain 18' in depth. 23. Parking spaces cannot extend over a property line, unless a shared parking agreement is provided. 24. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% in slope in any direction. 25. All slopes steeper than 3:1 must be stabilized with a low maintenance non grassed ground cover. 26. The proposed SWM facility requires forebays at each location of concentrated discharge into the facility.