Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800081 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2008-10-09Mr. Taggart, The following are comments based on your responses. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Amy Pflaum, Phil Custer, or myself. Your Comment No. 3 This item has been addressed. In my letter of 22AUG08, I requested your office to waive the curbing requirement partly as a result of stormwater management and irrigation issues with this site. This is supported by code section 18.4.12.15.g. Response: You are correct. This item was waived by the Department of Current Development. Your Comment No. 4 This item has been addressed. All areas have been regraded. The only spot I can find which is even questionable is the downhill, right hand turn into the new parking area. That grade is set based on radial grades of fillet and can be measured at 11 % but that measurement is not in line with traffic movements. Response: The area I'm referring to is the travelway. The distance between contours 464 through 472 are measured by the shoulder of the travelway. Some of those distances are less than 20 feet, hence having a percentage slope greater than 10 %. Another alternative to guardrails would be to provide clear zones. The clear zone limit must be 7 feet wide on both shoulders of the travelway and should have a min. of 4:1 steepness. Your Comment No. 5 This item has been addressed. The lower parking area has been moved to omit the wall. That is now a separated from the travelway by a shoulder and a 2:1 embankment. Why do we still need a guardrail? Response: We are referring to the existing parking area to the right of the relocated shed. We see a critical slope area with a drop -off and a guardrail would need to be provided. Please clarify the plan to show why a guardrail is not needed. Your Comment No. 15 This comment has been addressed. This pond has been designed to reduce the post - developed flows to below pre - developed levels. The outlet protection has been designed to full width (IAW VESCH) which should result in non - erosive velocities. These two measures together should preclude the need for offsite easements. Response: Please refer to MS -19 of the VESCH for a detailed description on the stormwater management of concentrated run -off. Your Comment No. 16 If I understand your comment correctly, you are indicating that I need to include the existing roadway into the site? Response: A stormwater management easement does not have to be extended to the property line. We see that the ACSA easement will suffice. Your Comment No. 22 This item has been addressed. Each Outlet protection has been specified on the plan. The standard detail is per VESCH. Response: This comment can be discarded. We see the dimensions on the plans. But, for future references, we suggest that dimensions be specified on all details if possible. Thank you. Your Comment No. 24 I assume you are requiring a buoyancy calculation for the riser structure. The pond is provided with a base detail as used in VESCH basin design. This design has always been considered "preapproved" in the past. Is it still necessary to provide buoyancy calcs? Response: I've reviewed the details once more and found it to suffice due to the fact that the dimensions of the base are twice the size of the riser. Your Comment No. 25 Why is the current design unacceptable? Response: Phil Custer will be getting back to you on this comment. Your Comment No. 26 1 have provided a detailed routing for this structure. By what criteria do you require a single drainage area? Response: Phil Custer will be getting back to you on this comment. Your Comment No. 27 The County's worksheet is provided on sheet 2 of the plans. "V" is calculated there at 109.5 c.y. It is my understanding that this is the WQV. The two year event stores some 223 c.y. Response: Phil Custer will be getting back to you on this comment.