HomeMy WebLinkAboutsdp200700061 Review Comments 2007-07-100
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: SDP - 2007 - 00061, Commonwealth Townhouses, Final Site Plan
WPO- 2007 - 00040, Commonwealth Townhouses, ESC Plan
Plan preparer: Johnny Drumheller, Dominion Development Resources [fax: 434.979.1681]
Owner or rep.: Dr. Charles W. Hurt, Hurt Investment Company [fax: 434.296.35101
Plan received date: 31 May 2007 (plan revision date 29 May 2007)
Date of comments: 10 July 2007
Reviewer: Andrew Lowe
The final site plan and erosion and sediment control plan for Commonwealth Townhouses,
submitted on 31 May 2007, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and
will require the following changes /corrections prior to final approval. Engineering is available
from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Mr. Allan Schack at
296.5832, ext. 3069, to schedule an appointment.
The first 4 comments have been provided by Greg Harper, the Albemarle County Water Resources
Manager.
1. The existing 48" RCP lying beneath Commonwealth Drive with an invert at structure number 2
called out at 478.0 is actually (according to recent survey by The Cox Company) a 36" CMP with
an invert of 473.73 (NGVD88).
2. Storm drainage structures number one and two should be considered preliminary; the design for
the "regional" basin- including the outfall control structures — can not be completed until a survey
has been completed.
3. The final stormwater design might require a baffle between the HDPE inlet and the riser structure
to prevent short - circuiting of flow.
4. FYI — Hal Jones, of the Cox Company, is continuing discussions with the ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
regarding the elimination of the sanitary pump station upstream of this project and the construction
of a gravity sanitary main underneath Commonwealth Drive and through the Albemarle Place
development; this may result in commonwealth townhouses connecting to the proposed new main
instead of its present configuration.
Please note that the following comments attributed to the Design Manual [DM] are based on the
latest revision of the Design Manual and the Engineer Review Final Plan checklist on the County's
website.
A. Final Site Plan (SDP -2007 - 00061)
1. VDOT approval will be needed before final approval is granted. At this time we have not received
VDOT comments.
2. Please provide copies of new retaining wall and grading easement. [DM]
3. Show spot elevations for both retaining walls at the base and top of wall at both ends. [DM]
4. VDOT guardrail is needed for the retaining wall next to travelway. [DM]
5. Please show all required easements related to drainage, SWM, and grading on the plans. [DM]
6. An access road and easement for BMP maintenance will need to be shown around the retaining
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
walls. Please show required grading for the SWM access road. [DM]
Show the dumpster pad at 10' x 10' with 8' in front for wheel bearing (total 18' depth). [DM]Provide the following details per Design Manual:
a. Pavement design
b. Dumpster pad
c. Sidewalk
d. Retaining walls with a detail for the guardrail and safety rail needed at the top of theretainingwalls
e. Please provide a professional engineering seal for the details where the 15 "HDPE pipegoesthroughorundertheproposedretainingwall.
9. Show concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) on all drainage structures. [DM]
10. Show safety slabs (SL -1) in any drainage structure taller than 12'. [DM]
11. Engineering recommends lowering STR -4 to provide a less steep slope for the outlet pipe. [DM]
12. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to the required changes.
B. Erosion Control Plan (WPO -2007- 00040)
Narrative
For Erosion and Sediment Control Notes, use list 3 from the Final Engineer Review List within the
Design Manual. [DM]
Plan
2. Please provide Sediment Basin calculations. [DM & VESCH 3.141
3. Show a sediment basin detail with elevations for dewatering orifice and water levels for specifiedstorms. [DM & VESCH 3.14]
4. Show stockpile location along with staging and parking areas within the limits of grading. [DM]5. Use a temporary diversion dike to direct runoff into the sediment basin in the back portion of the
property instead of the silt fence running downslope. [DM & VESCH 3.09]6. Provide outlet protection detail and computation. [DM & VESCH 3.18]7. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to the required changes.
C. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan (WPO -2007- 00040)
1. A stormwater management plan will need to be submitted and approved.2. It appears that the timing of this final site plan review and approval will not correlate with the
county's intent to build a regional SWM facility on and adjacent to this property. The applicant
needs to submit a SWM plan with appropriate application and fee in order for this site plan to get
County approval. The County is recommending the applicant proceed forward with one of the
following options so as not to further delay approval of the final site plan:
a. Option 1: The County will waive the onsite SWM detention requirements for this site
plan if the applicant provides the following items: The SWM plan will provide SWM
quality, a graded SWM access road to STR 1, receive and provide needed easements, and
the applicant will construct the drainage infrastructure as shown on the final site plan.b. Option 2: The applicant can provide SWM quality and quantity on the SWM plan. The
applicant will also provide an easement to accommodate a future regional SWM facility.
c. Option 3: The applicant can delay the review process for this site plan until the County
can coordinate with all entities needed to design and build the regional SWM facility,
including this applicant and surrounding property owners.
3. The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount has not been determined at this time.
4. Additional comments will be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
Service Auth4rit
July 23, 2007
Dominion Development Resources, LLC
Attn: Mr. Johnny Drumheller
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Re: Commonwealth Townhouses
Dear Mr. Drumheller:
The plan, entitled "Commonwealth Townhouses" dated December 8, 2006, last
revised July 9, 2007, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan
is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this
approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer
Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does
not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and
specifications.
The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job
site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction
plan showing as -built information and provide this data to your client at the completion of
utility installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy
and one mylar copy.
A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to
ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the
project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please
have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting.
168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If cnotinprogressattheendofthistimeperiod, the approval shall be void. if you have anyquestionsorifwecanbeofassistance, please give us a call
construction is
at (434) 977 -4511.
JML:dmg
cc: Lane Bonner
State Health Department
Planning Department
Bldg Codes & Zoning Services
Soil Erosion Inspector
050601 CommTownDrumheller072307
Sincerely,
Jeremy M. Lynn, P.E.
Civil Engineer
jRGIN
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: SDP - 2007 - 00061, Commonwealth Townhouses, Final Site Plan
WPO -2007- 00040, Commonwealth Townhouses, ESC Plan
Plan preparer: Johnny Drumheller, Dominion Development Resources [fax: 434.979.1681 ]
Owner or rep.: Dr. Charles W. Hurt, Hurt Investment Company [fax: 434.296.35101
Plan received date: 31 May 2007 (plan revision date 29 May 2007)
Rev. 1: 19 September 2007 (plan revision date 19 September 2007)
Date of comments: 10 July 2007
Rev. 1 : 26 October 2007
Reviewer: Andrew Lowe
The final site plan and erosion and sediment control plan for Commonwealth Townhouses,
submitted on 31 May 2007, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and
will require the following changes /corrections prior to final approval. Engineering is available
from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Mr. Allan Schuck at
296.5832, ext. 3069, to schedule an appointment.
Please note that the following comments attributed to the Design Manual [DM] are based on the
latest revision of the Design Manual and the Engineer Review Final Plan checklist on the County's
website.
A. Final Site Plan (SDP- 2007 - 00061)
1. VDOT approval will be needed before final approval is granted. At this time we have not received
VDOT comments.
Rev. 1: This comment is not addressed. We are waiting for VDOT comments to the revised plans.
2. Please provide copies of new retaining wall and grading easement. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
3. Show spot elevations for both retaining walls at the base and top of wall at both ends. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
4. VDOT guardrail is needed for the retaining wall next to travelway. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
5. Please show all required easements related to drainage, SWM, and grading on the plans. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. For example an easement will be needed.for the high -
water level around the sediment basin. The entire flooded area needs to be shown on all plans.
6. An access road and easement for BMP maintenance will need to be shown around the retaining
walls. Please show required grading for the SWM access road. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. The access road needs to be graded down to structure
1. The access road needs to be 10' wide, gravel ifgradient is greater than 10 %, and cannot have a
gradient greater than 20 %.
7. Show the dumpster pad at 10' x 10' with 8' in front for wheel bearing (total 18' depth). [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
8. Provide the following details per Design Manual:
a. Pavement design
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
b. Dumpster pad
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
c. Sidewalk
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
d. Retaining walls with a detail for the guardrail and safety rail needed at the top of the
retaining walls
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
e. Please provide a professional engineering seal for the details where the 15 "HDPE pipe
goes through or under the proposed retaining wall.
Rev. I: This comment has been addressed.
9. Show concrete inlet shaping (IS -1) on all drainage structures. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
10. Show safety slabs (SL -1) in any drainage structure taller than 12'. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
11. Engineering recommends lowering STR -4 to provide a less steep slope for the outlet pipe. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
12. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to the required changes.
B. Erosion Control Plan (WPO- 2007 - 00040)
Narrative
1. For Erosion and Sediment Control Notes, use list 3 from the Final Engineer Review List within the
Design Manual. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
Plan
2. Please provide Sediment Basin calculations. [DM & VESCH 3.14]
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. Please include the VESCH Worksheets for sediment
basins. It appears that the basin does not meet the requirements,for overall storage.
3. Show a sediment basin detail with elevations for dewatering orifice and water levels for specified
storms. [DM & VESCH 3.14]
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. Please use a large detail showing the,/ill design of the
sediment basin including items such as the riser material and size, the barrel connection, also showing the
high water levels of the design storm, and all other applicable information.
4. Show stockpile location along with staging and parking areas within the limits of grading. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
5. Use a temporary diversion dike to direct runoff into the sediment basin in the back portion of the
property instead of the silt fence running downslope. [DM & VESCH 3.09]
Rev. I: This comment has been addressed.
6. Provide outlet protection detail and computation. [DM & VESCH 3.18]
Rev. 1: This comment has been addressed.
7. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to the required changes.
8. A bond estimate will be computed by the County once the plans are approved.
Rev. 1: The bond estimate will be computed when the plan is approved.
Additional ESC comments
Rev. 1: Please address the sediment basin conversion to a final design.
C. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan (WPO -2007- 00040)
1. A stormwater management plan will need to be submitted and approved.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. Please confirm that the application has been
completed and the fee has been paid to the County.
2. It appears that the timing of this final site plan review and approval will not correlate with the
county's intent to build a regional SWM facility on and adjacent to this property. The applicant
needs to submit a SWM plan with appropriate application and fee in order for this site plan to get
County approval. The County is recommending the applicant proceed forward with one of the
following options so as not to further delay approval of the final site plan:
a. Option 1: The County will waive the onsite SWM detention requirements for this site
plan if the applicant provides the following items: The SWM plan will provide SWM
quality, a graded SWM access road to STR I, receive and provide needed easements, and
the applicant will construct the drainage infrastructure as shown on the final site plan.b. Option 2: The applicant can provide SWM quality and quantity on the SWM plan. The
applicant will also provide an easement to accommodate a future regional SWM facility.
c. Option 3: The applicant can delay the review process for this site plan until the County
can coordinate with all entities needed to design and build the regional SWM facility,
including this applicant and surrounding property owners.
Rev. 1: This comment has not been fully addressed. Please state in writing which option will be
chosen and how all of the specified requirements are being addressed.
3. The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount has not been determined at this time.
Rev. 1: The bond estimate will be computed when the plan is approved.
4. Additional continents will be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
Additional Comments
5. Please submit stormwater maintenance agreement and $17 fee to be paid to the County.6. Please submit copies of the manufacturer's approval for Filtera stormwater management facilities.7. The SWM Plan (per comment 2 a. -c.) will need to address the conversion of the sediment basin to
a final design.
ST)P -2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Andrew Lowe
From: Jonathan Sharp
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 4:00 PM
To: Andrew Lowe
Subject: FW: SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ mailto:J oel.Denunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:59 PM
To: Jonathan Sharp
Subject: SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Jon,
Page 1 of 2
I have reviewed the above plan and all my previous comments have been addressed. The applicant will need to
obtain a permit for the entrance to this site from the VDOt Charlottesville office.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joe1. denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:18 AM
To: 'Allan Schuck'
Subject: SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Allan,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
Provide drainage calculations.
Show entrance profile. Also, entrance needs to be a CG -11, not a CG -9A.
1/29/2008
SDP- 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes Page 2 of 2
Show existing and projected traffic volumes.
The entrance is wider than the maximum allowed for a commercial entrance.
Show the sight distance triangles and dimensions.
The new DI -1 cannot be within the pedestrian crossing path. Also, the new DI -313 looks like it will
conflict with the CG -12.
Show CG -12 details and types.
The pavement section back to the ROW line needs to be the same as on Route 1315.
Show the 48 inch pipe in its entirety.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel. dell unzio@Virg inia DOT, org
1/29/2008
08 -07 -2007 SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Allan,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
Provide drainage calculations.
Show entrance profile. Also, entrance needs to be a CG -11, not a CG -9A.
Show existing and projected traffic volumes.
The entrance is wider than the maximum allowed for a commercial entrance.
Show the sight distance triangles and dimensions.
The new DI -1 cannot be within the pedestrian crossing path. Also, the new DI -313 looks
like it will conflict with the CG -12.
Show CG -12 details and types.
The pavement section back to the ROW line needs to be the same as on Route 1315.
Show the 48 inch pipe in its entirety.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 -293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @VirginiaDOT.org
SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .Denunzio @VDOT.virgima.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:59 PM
To: Jonathan Sharp
Subject: SDP -2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Jon,
Pagel of 2
I have reviewed the above plan and all my previous comments have been addressed. The applicant will need to
obtain a permit for the entrance to this site from the VDOt Charlottesville office.
Thanks,
Joel
Joe! DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
Loel_denwuioo ydot_virg nia. ov
From: Denunzio, Joel D., P.E.
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:18 AM
To: 'Allan Schuck'
Subject: SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Allan,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
Provide drainage calculations.
Show entrance profile. Also, entrance needs to be a CG -11, not a CG -9A.
Show existing and projected traffic volumes.
The entrance is wider than the maximum allowed for a commercial entrance.
Show the sight distance triangles and dimensions.
The new DI -1 cannot be within the pedestrian crossing path. Also, the new DI -313 looks like it will
conflict with the CG -12.
Show CG -12 details and types.
file: //\\ cob- dts01 \CityViewLnk \Docs \2007 Applications \2007 SDPs \SDP200700061 Com... 7/10/2008
SDP- 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes Page 2 of 2
The pavement section back to the ROW line needs to be the same as on Route 1315.
Show the 48 inch pipe in its entirety.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joe1.denunz
file: //\\ cob- dts0l \CityViewLnk \Does \2007 Applications \2007 SDPs \SDP200700061 Com... 7/10/2008
08 -07 -2007 SDP - 2007 -00061 Commonwealth Townhomes
Allan,
We have reviewed the above plan and have the following comments:
Provide drainage calculations.
Show entrance profile. Also, entrance needs to be a CG -11, not a CG -9A.
Show existing and projected traffic volumes.
The entrance is wider than the maximum allowed for a commercial entrance.
Show the sight distance triangles and dimensions.
The new DI -1 cannot be within the pedestrian crossing path. Also, the new DI -313 looks
like it will conflict with the CG -12.
Show CG -12 details and types.
The pavement section back to the ROW line needs to be the same as on Route 1315.
Show the 48 inch pipe in its entirety.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio @VirgintaDOT.org
Page I of 1
Andrew Lowe
From: Greg Harper
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:30 AM
To: Andrew Lowe
Subject: comments on Commonwealth Townhouses final site plan
Andy,
Tom Muncaster sent me a set of the final site plans for Commonwealth Townhouses. My comments are:
earlier plans indicated an RCP from primary outfall (structure 1) to emergency outfall (structure 2); now theplansindicateHDPEonmostsheets (except sheet C -6). Plans should be revised to indicate an RCP onallsheets.
sheets show various alignments of the aformentioned pipe (from structure 1 to 2); preferred alignment isindicatedonsheetsC -2 and C -6
same pipe is shown to be 31.81 ft @ 1.26% on sheet C -2 and 28.44 ft @ 1.41 % in detail on sheet C -5
Let me know if you have any questions regarding these comments.
Thanks,
Greg
2/11/2008
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone(434)296 -5832
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Fax (434) 972 -4126
SDP- 2007 - 00061, Commonwealth Townhouses, Final Site Plan
WPO- 2007 - 00040, Commonwealth Townhouses, ESC Plan
Johnny Drumheller, Dominion Development Resources [fax: 434.979.1681 ]
Dr. Charles W. Hurt, Hurt Investment Company [fax: 434.296.35 10]
31 May 2007 (plan revision date 29 May 2007)
Rev. 1: 19 September 2007 (plait revision (late 19 September 2007)
Rev. 2 : 1 FehruatT 2008
10 July 2007
Rev. 1: 26 October 2007
Rev. 2 : 17 Match 2008
Rev. 1 and 2: Andrew Lonve
Rev. 2 : Phil Custer
The final site, swm, and erosion and sediment control plans for Commonwealth Townhouses,
submitted on 1 February, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and
will require the following changes /corrections prior to final approval.
A. Final Site Plan (SDP- 2007 - 00061)
VDOT approval will be needed before final approval is granted. At this time we have not received
VDOT comments.
Rev. 2: VDOT approval has been received.
4. VDOT guardrail is needed for the retaining wall next to travelway. [DM]
Rev. 2: The retaining wall detail needs to be included in the plan set. It seems to have disappeared
in the last submittal. The detail should also show how the guardrail posts connect to the wall
blocks. It appears that the wall /guardraiUcurb configuration may need to be wider than the plan
shows.
6. An access road and easement for BMP maintenance will need to be shown around the retaining
walls. Please show required grading for the SWM access road. [DM]
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addressed. The access load needs to he graded down to structure
1. Tl7e ucces,. t "oa(1 t7eeds to be 1 tl ' vt'lde, gt "avel if gt•a(lient iv gre(ltet• tltatt 1O% and ediittot hale (l
gradient greater than 20°0.
Rev. 2: Please see SWM comment #2.
igineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
d. Retaining walls with a detail for the guardrail and safety rail needed at the top of the
retaining walls
Rev. 2: The retaining wall detail needs to be included in the plan set. It seems to have disappeared
in the last submittal. The detail should also show how the guardrail posts connect to the wall
blocks. It appears that the wallgguardrail configuration may need to be wider than the plan shows.
12. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to the required changes.
B. Erosion Control Plan (WPO- 2007 - 00040)
Plan
2. Please provide Sediment Basin calculations. [DM & VESCH 3.14]
Rev. 1: This comment has not been addres'se'd. Please include the VESCH Worksheets /or .sediment
hasins. It appears that the basin does not ineet the requirements, for overall storage.
Rev. 2: The sediment basin has been eliminated and replaced with a sediment trap that is intended
to control just the site runoff. The following comments have been provided regarding the sediment
trap.
a. Please show and dimension the trap outlet weir.
b. The grading of the trap is a bit confusing. Please label proposed contours clear!}'. Due to
the tight grade lines, a 5 or 10 scale detail may be helpful.
lgineenng Review Continents
Page 3 of 4
7. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal due to the required changes.
a. Rev. 2: Please indicate how water from structure 4 will be diverted into the sediment trap.
The construction of the pipe from structure 4 to 3 would compromise the adjacent 14ft wall.
Please modify this segment so the pipe configuration can work both during construction and in
the post developed condition.
b. Rev. 2: Please add as step 18 that the Filterra units are to be activated by Filterra personnel.
c. Rev. 2: Please add silt fence adjacent to the sidewalk along Commonwealth Dr. (Please note
that the ESC inspector may require safety fences in this area as well and the contractor.)
8. A bond estimate will be computed by the County once the plans are approved.
Rev. 2: The bond estimate will be computed when the plan is approved.
Additional ESC comments
C. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan (WPO -2007- 00040)
2. It appears that the timing of this final site plan review and approval will not correlate with the
county's intent to build a regional SWM facility on and adjacent to this property. The applicant
needs to submit a SWM plan with appropriate application and fee in order for this site plan to get
County approval. The County is recommending the applicant proceed forward with one of the
following options so as not to further delay approval of the final site plan:
a. Option 1: The County will waive the onsite SWM detention requirements for this site
plan if the applicant provides the following items: The SWM plan will provide SWM
quality, a graded SWM access road to STR 1, receive and provide needed easements, and
the applicant will construct the drainage infrastructure as shown on the final site plan.
b. Option 2: The applicant can provide SWM quality and quantity on the SWM plan. The
applicant will also provide an easement to accommodate a future regional SWM facility.
c. Option 3: The applicant can delay the review process for this site plan until the County
can coordinate with all entities needed to design and build the regional SWM facility,
including this applicant and surrounding property owners.
Rev. l: This comment has not been filly a(h1res's'ed. Please state in writing which option will be
chosen and how all of the specified rcquirements are being addressed.
Rev. 2: At this time, it appears the applicant is pursuing option I listed above. The applicant must
state this in writing. The conditions of option 1 and their status are listed below:
SWM QUALITY: Once engineering review has received the approval letter from Filterra, the
SWM quality portion of'the review will be addressed.
GRADED ACCESS: The applicant needs to provide a 10ft wide landing (just on the
Commonwealth Townhome site), at the 487 elevation, from TMP 61 W- 03 -14A to the pipe between
structures I and 2. It appears the height of the lower wall may need to be increased to provide this
landing.
lgineering Review Continents
Page 4 of 4
EASEMENTS: Please clarify on the plan that the SWM easement follows the lower retaining wall
and show how it meets the boundary line (S35 41' 13 "E).
STORM INFRASTRUCTURE: Please see SWM comment #8 and ESC comment #7a.
3. The SWM portion of the WPO bond amount has not been determined at this time.
Rev. 2: The bond estimate will be computed when the plan is approved.
4. Additional comments will be forthcoming on the next submittal due to required changes.
Additional Comments
5. Please submit stonnwater maintenance agreement and $17 fee to be paid to the County.
Rev. 2: Comment has not been addresses/
6. Please submit copies of the manufacturer's approval for Filterra stornwater management facilities.
Rev. 2: Comment has not been addressed.
8. Rev. 2: The following comments have been given by the Water Resources Manager, Greg
Harper.
earlier plans indicated an RCP from primary outfall (structure 1) to emergency outfall
structure 2); now the plans indicate HDPE on most sheets (except sheet C -6). Plans
should be revised to indicate an RCP on all sheets.
sheets show various alignments of the aformentioned pipe (from structure 1 to 2);
preferred alignment is indicated on sheets C -2 and C -6
same pipe is shown to be 31.81 ft @ 1.26% on sheet C -2 and 28.44 ft @ 1.41 % in
detail on sheet C -5
Application #: SDP20 Short Review Commtntts
Project Name: ICOMMO TOWN - FINAL SITE PLAN -Res — Administrati
Date Completed 06/19/2008
Reviewer: Bill Fritz Planner Z &CD
Review Status: Pending
Reviews Comments:
jsiapproved
natur an the submi of th final
subject ssite p re fee.
Date
signed on the copies submited for County
L
Date Completed. 04/30/2008
Reviewer Max Greene Engineer Z &CD
Review Status: Administrative Approval
Reviews Comments. [All previous Engineering comments appear adequately addressed. The plan is approvable as
f submitted.
Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On Thursday, July 10, 2008