Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201100051 Review Comments Stormwater Management Plan 2011-11-17COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Country Green Cottages SWM Amendment (WPO- 20 1 1- 0005 1) Owner: Mr. Dale Ludwig Applicant: Mr. Tim Miller, PE; Meridian Planning Group, LLC Plan received date: 18 July 2011 (Rev. 1) 31 October 2011 Date of comments: 23 August 2011 (Rev. 1) 17 November 2011 Reviewer: Phil Custer The first revision to the SWM Amendment for Country Green Cottages (WPO- 2011 - 00051), received 31 October 2011, has been reviewed by engineering. The following comments must be addressed in order to receive plan approval: 1. The incoming pipe is in a different alignment than the approved plan. Is this current pipe location based on the as -built condition? (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 2. The county will grant a variance for the downstream slope of 2.5:1 (steeper than the 3:1 standard) if a 2.5:1 slope is applied to the upstream slope of the embankment in keeping with the 5:1 standard as outlined on VSMH 3.01 -13. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Both embankment slopes are now 2.5:1. However, with the changes required to address comments 2 and 3, a retaining wall has been added to the embankment. While retaining walls in SWH embankments are questionable, the previous SWHplan was approved with a much larger retaining wall in the embankment and, therefore, no further modification is necessary. 3. The width of the embankment is not adequate. The embankment detail states that the provided width is loft, but this width is only accurate for the distance between the 488 contours. Embankment widths must be measured at the top elevation, 488.8. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. The embankment width is now ]Oft. However, with the changes required to address comments 2 and 3, a retaining wall has been added to the embankment. While retaining walls in SWH embankments are questionable, the previous SWM plan was approved with a much larger retaining wall in the embankment and, therefore, no further modification is necessary. 4. Please provide horseshoe - shaped gravel rings around the two inlets to create makeshift forebays. This will not affect any of the water quality or water quantity calculations. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 5. Please provide Top of Wall and Bottom of Wall spot elevations for the new wall. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. The plan shows disturbance to the neighboring property, TMP 76 -52J3. Also, disturbance is needed to this property to apply a roofdrain system on the back gutters to drain to the biofilter. Please provide a signed letter from the owner of this lot consenting to the grading shown on the plan and the construction of the roofdrain system implied in the approved SWM plan. (Rev. 1) The county is still waiting on a letter from the adjacent owner for the connections of the roofdrains to the biofilter. 6 10 Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 Please provide a landscape schedule on sheet C -101. Also, it appears more plants are needed to meet the state's 10 plants per 1000sf guideline. [VSMH 3.11 -20] (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. The outlet protection at the end of the barrel seems to have significantly eroded in the last several years. The design of this outlet should be reexamined to discover a more stable solution. (Rev. 1) The area of the site I was referring to was the outlet of the stormwater facility, not the outlet of the road drainage system, though there is erosion occurring at both locations. Provide a detail for the pipe outlet through the wall. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. Please replace "Luck Bio- Filter Mix or approved equal" with "State Approved Mix" wherever the Luck mix is specified. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 11. The SWM bond will be recomputed at the time of plan approval and the applicant will need to post it in order to construct the facility. (Rev. 1) It has been determined that no modification to the bond is necessary.