HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201500012 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2015-06-09��OF AGB�d
t�rt�iui�
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 title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
Earlysville Business Park
SDP201500012
Meridian Planning Group, LLC
WWANDS, LLC
28 Apr 2015
9 Jun 2015
Michelle Roberge
Engineering has completed the minor site plan review. Please address the following comments.
A. Site Plan - Minor
The application submitted was a site plan. However calculations for the basin was included. Please clarify
if you intended to submit a VSMP application. A fee and application should be submitted for a VSMP
review.
1) It appears you are disturbing critical slopes. Verify a waiver has been approved. Otherwise, a
waiver needs to be submitted. Discuss with planning.
2) Show easements around SWM facility.
3) Show maintenance access to SWM facility.
Though a VSMP application has not been submitted, I have provided a courteous review. Please see the
following (A thorough review will be done with a VSMP application):
1) Clarify the 14 acres for predeveloped conditions. Include a DA map stating acreage, Tc, and Cn.
This needs to correspond with calcs.
2) Do the same for 11 acres of the postdeveloped conditions. Include a DA map stating acreage, Tc,
and Cn. This needs to correspond with calcs.
3) The drainage area for the site is approximately 5 acres in the previous WPO application this plan
is amending. Please clarify. See WP02006 -39.
4) Provide the VRRM sheet to verify quality requirements are satisfied.
5) Label the BMP on plan. Note that bioretention should not have more than 12" of ponding, even
with larger storms.
6) Tree removal needs to be shown within the limits of disturbance. For example where SCC -1 is
shown is a wooded area.
7) How will water quantity be addressed? This is channel protection and flood protection in
9VAC25- 870 -66. It appears the method is to provide peak rate for 2 and 10 year below the
existing 2 and 10 year peak rate. The basin is proposed in a heavily eroded channel. It appears
more can be detained with the basin with a re- design to alleviate the erosion problem. Also,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
reduce the erosive velocity. Please note that a geotextile fabric has been placed in this area to
try to alleviate the problem.
8) Provide a detail of BMP.
9) State culvert type in basin.
10) Outlet of culvert on C -201 appears to be 562, yet the calcs show the inv from basin is 559.5.
Revise.
11) SCC calculations and outlet protection calcs need to be provided.
12) The rectangular orifice dimension is almost half of the pipe. Is this an error? Please revise.
13) The slope adjacent to the bioretention is too steep. I also recall gravel piled at the edge of the
parking lot. Regrade the area to the 3:1 slope to bioretention. This may shift the bioretention
east.
14) Confirm there is a swale east of biortention.
15) Avoid short circuiting in bioretention.
16) Provide bioretention plantings.
Engineering plan review staff is available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.