Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900050 Review Comments 2008-05-07COMMO1\ WEALTH OF V1 RG1N A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 VirginiaDOT.org David S. Ekern, P.E. COMMISSIONER May 7, 2008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments May 8, 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 8, 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2008 -00059 Olinva and sons -Maior (Megan Yaniglos) No comments SDP - 2008 -00060 First Church of the Nazarene — Preliminary (Summer Frederick) VDOT has previously reviewed the configuration and location of the turn land and entrance and it does appear to be in accordance with past meetings and comments from VDOT. The construction of VDOT project 0022 - 002 -104 will begin May 12` ", 2008. This plan needs to, and appears to be, designed to the changes by the intersection project. Final plans should show the proposed intersection project and how the proposed turn lane and entrance will tie in to that project. VDOT has provided the developer the survey data and that needs to be shown on the final plan. SDP - 2008 -00061 Easrlysville Business Park -Final (Summer Frederick) The sag vertical curve at station 21 +44 needs to have a minimum k value of 17. Outlet protection at A 1 should be class II rip rap SDP - 2008 -00064 Georgetown/Hydraulic Professional Offices- Preliminary (Lisa Glass) Previous comments have been made for ZMA- 2006 -00014 that still need to be addressed and are: CLEARS 06 TRANSPORTATION EXCELLENCE 4 9 0 6 2 D 0 6 This plan must be coordinated with the VDOT project for Georgetown Road. The project manager has been forwarded a copy of this plan. The applicants engineer should contact VDOT for coordination. It is very undesirable to have the entrance in the functional area of the intersection, however, a previous meeting with the engineer and the county determined that this is the best solution at this site for Hydraulic Road. The only other option is to access the site from Georgetown Road. The plan needs to show the intersection of 656 and 743 and show details of turn movements, lane widths, storage lengths, etc. All projected and existing traffic needs to be shown on the plan. Sight lines need to be shown for the entrance to the site and also for the existing intersection at 656/743. Vehicles heading northbound on Hydraulic trying to turn left into the site is a dangerous situation and needs to be addressed with the site plan. Proposed traffic needs to be shown on the site plan to determine is a Chapter 527 study needs to be done. SDP - 2008 -00065 Moser Radiation Therapy Ctr -Major (Gerald Gatobu) LTACH access management plan should be completed prior to any site plan approvals. SDP - 2008 -00066 Hunters Way Site Plan Amendment -Major (Lisa K Glass) The plan needs to include calculations for outlet velocity on YD1 and outlet protection details. Also include ditch calculations. SUB - 2008 -00102 Handley Farm Estates(10 -19) lots -Final (Megan Yaniglos) No comments. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti Summer Frederick From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent:Monday, November 23, 2009 2:07 PM To:Summer Frederick Cc:Jim Taggart Subject:SDP - 2009 -00050 Charlottesville First Church of the Nazarene Summer, I received this plan directly from Jim Taggart for review and have the following comments: 1. Please use CG -7 along the roadway frontage back to the Right of Way line and then transition to CG -6. 2. The pavement structure will be determined at the time the Land Use Permit is issued. Please contact my office if you need this information prior to permitting. 3. The drainage calculations for the culvert under the entrance appear to be low due to the high time of concentration. My calculations estimate Tc of around 16 minutes. 4. The western side of the entrance needs to have the curbing set back 12 feet from the lane and have a 48 foot taper as it is shown on figure 4 -9 of appendix A in the Road Design Manual. 5. An adjustment to the right of way will be needed around the turn lane. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 - 293 -0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzionvdot.virginia.gov 1 oy J i Il 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:C'Ville First Church of the Nazarene [SDP200900050, WP0200900030] Plan preparer:Jimmy L. Taggart [JTagg2 @aol.com] Owner or rep.:Albemarle Edgehill Farm LLC Plan received date: 23 June 2009 Date of comments: 17 July 2009 Reviewer:John P. Diez — Current Development - Engineering Technician A. Final site plan (SDP200900050) 1. Please revise the Tax Map and Parcel number on the plans. It appears that our county records show the work being done is on TMP 79 -8A. 2. Please provide a completed copy of the standards stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management facilities [17 -304E] 3. Please provide date of the topographic information. 4. VDOT approval must be obtained prior to final site plan approval. 5. All entrances must have VDOT designations (PE -1, CG -9a, etc.) 6. It appears that the entrance exceeds the 4% grade minimum for the distance of 40' from the intersected street. Please revise. [18- 4.12.17] 7. Please provide an entrance road profile. [18- 4.12.17b] 8. Please provide site distance lines at the entrance. 9. Some of the texts on the plans are illegible. Please clarify. 10. Some parking areas exceed the 5% maximum grade. Please revise. [18- 4.12.15c] 11. Sidewalks abutting parking must be 6' wide (exclusive of curb), or bumper blocks are provided. 18- 4.12.16e] 12. The dumpster pad specifications must be a minimum 4" stone base and 6" concrete of 3000 psi at 28 days, or stronger, reinforced with a minimum grid of wire reinforcing or #4 bars @ 12" on center. 13. Please provide existing ground, VDOT designations, throat length for each drop inlet, grate type for each grate inlet, and utility crossings on all drainage profiles. 14. Pipe slopes must be 0.5% min. to 16% max. 15. All labels on drainage profiles must match with storm inlet summary. 16. Please provide end sections (ES -1) or endwalls (EW -1) on all pipe outlets. 17. All inlet spreads must be less than 10' 18. Please submit culvert calculations. 19. All directions of flow change (or deflection angles) in each drainage structure must be 90 degrees or greater. 20. Please submit inlet drainage area maps with drainage acreage, limits of all areas and sub -areas draining to proposed structures (and existing structures or channels which will be impacted, hydrologic coefficients, and time of concentration for each drainage area. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200900030) 21. Please label pre - development and post - development drainage area maps with acreage, coefficients, and time of concentration. 22. Please address MS -19 at the proposed outfall of the proposed pond and at the outfall of structure 23. There appears to be no stormwater management facilities to treat the runoff to DA -Q. Please illustrate how this area will be treated. 24. Please provide Albemarle County general stormwater notes. Please refer to the Design Standards Manual. 25. This parcel is not in a development area, but in other rural land. Please, revise removal rate requirements. 26. Please provide a vehicle access road to the proposed pond. The access must be graded to 10' width and less than 20% grade. C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO200900030) 27. Please provide a construction sequence. 28. Prior to the installation of the curb and gutter and inlets, much of the site does not drain to the proposed sediment basin. It seems that a diversion dike may be necessary at the top of the proposed lot embankment. 29. Please provide dust control symbols (DC). 30. There seem to be discrepancies between the sediment basin calculations on the plans and the sediment basin sizing computations. 31. The construction entrance must drain to a sediment trap. 32. Please provide a staging and/or parking area. 33. Please provide outlet protection to all proposed outlets. 34. Use storm drain inlet protection (OP) on inlets only. 35. Use culvert inlet protection (CIP) on culvert inlets only. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit two (2) copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30pm — 4:OOpm on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Amy Pflaum at 434 -296 -5832 or apflaum @albemarle.org to schedule an appointment. If you have any questions, you can reach me, John Diez, at (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3025, or my email: j diez(a)albemarle.org. Ot AI,a4,Y 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:C'Ville First Church of the Nazarene [SDP200900050, WP0200900030] Plan preparer:Jimmy L. Taggart [JTagg2Caol.com] Owner or rep.:Albemarle Edgehill Farm LLC Plan received date: 23 June 2009 Rev. 1: 7 October 2009 Date of comments: 17 July 2009 Rev. 1: 22 October 2009 Reviewer:John P. Diez — Current Development - Engineering Technician A. Final site plan (SDP200900050) 1. 2. Please provide a completed copy of the standards stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management facilities [17 -304E] Rev. 1) Comment has been noted. 3. 4. VDOT approval must be obtained prior to fmal site plan approval. Rev. 1) Comment has been noted. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Some parking areas exceed the 5% maximum grade. Please revise. [18- 4.12.15c] Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. 11. 12. 13. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. A9. All directions of flow change (or deflection angles) in each drainage structure must be 90 degrees or greater. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Pipes LED still have an angle of less than 90 degrees. , 20. 21. The current design for the storm sewer system requires a critical slopes waiver. B. Stormwater Management Plan (WPO200900030) 22 23. Please address MS -19 at the proposed outfall of the proposed pond and at the outfall of structure Q .. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Please provide information as to where the water flows to from point "Q ". 24. There appears to be no stormwater management facilities to treat the runoff to DA -Q. Please illustrate how this area will be treated. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. Stormceptor facilities are awarded up to 20% removal rate in the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook (Section 3.15). However, the pollutant removal rate that must be achieved for this project (based on the County's Simple Method Spreadsheet) is 83 %. 1 25. 26. 27. C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO200900030) 28. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 29. 30. 31. There seem to be discrepancies between the sediment basin calculations on the plans and the sediment basin sizing computations. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The pond bottom elevation of the plan detail does not match with the engineering talc. packet. 32. The construction entrance must drain to a sediment trap. Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The construction entrance should be moved up the travelway so that a sediment trap can be installed outside of the VDOT right -of -way. 33. 34. 35. 36. Once these comments have been addressed, please submit two (2) copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current Development Engineering. Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30pm — 4:OOpm on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact Amy Pflaum at 434 -296 -5832 or apflaumgalbemarle.org to schedule an appointment. If you have any questions, you can reach me, John Diez, at (434) 296 -5832 ext. 3025, or my email: diet. albemarle.org. ov flAtirl* V 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:C'Ville First Church of the Nazarene [SDP200900050, WPO2009000301 Plan preparer:Jimmy L. Taggart [JTagg2 @aol.com] Owner /Applicant: Albemarle Edgehill FarmLLC Plan received date: 23 June 2009 Rev 1: 7 October 2009 Rev 2: 11 December 2009 Date of comments: 17 July 2009 Rev 1: 22 October 2009 Rev 2: 22 January 2010 Reviewer:John P. Diez — Engineering Technician A. Final Site Han 2. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management facilities. [17 -304E] Rev 1) Comment has not been addressed Rev 2) Comment has not been addressed 4. VDOT approval must be obtained prior to fmal site plan approval. Revd) Comment has been noted Albemarle Minty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 B. Stormwater Management Plan 23. Please address MS -19 at the proposed outfall of the proposed pond and at the outfall of structure Rev.2) Please see the memo accompanying this comment letter. 24. There appears to be no stormwater management facilities to treat the runoff to DA -Q. Please illustrate how this area will be treated. Revd) Comment has not been addressed. Stormceptor facilities are awarded up to 20% removal rate in the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook (Section 3.15). However, the pollutant removal rate that must be achieved for this project (based on the County's Simple Method Spreadsheet) is 83 %. Rev.2) A biofilter has been provided in this area. However, please make the following adjustments to the biofilter draining to Point Q: the biofilter is shown in plan view as having a bed area of around 800sf but the calculations refer to a bed area of 392sf; please clarify; if a bed of 800sf is provided 8 plantings will be needed 7 Y ._. the maximum ponding depth of the biofilter is Ift; please drop the rim elevation of the inlet by O.5ft Albemarle aunty Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 31. There seem to be discrepancies between the sediment basin calculations on the plans and the sediment basin sizing computations. Rev 1) Comment has not been addressed The pond bottom elevation of the plan detail does not match with the engineering calc. packet. Rev 2) Comment has not been addressed. Revised calculations for the sediment basin on the southwest corner of the site have not been submitted 37. It seems that your layer for limits of disturbance has been turned off. Please revise. CAA County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:John Diez, Current Development Engineer From:Phil Custer, Current Development Engineer Date:22 January 2010 Subject: First Church of the Nazarene (WPO- 2009 - 00030) I have reviewed the project for MS -19 compliance. First of all, due to the reconfiguration of the site watersheds, it seems that the peak discharge, peak velocity, and total volume of runoff to Point Q are all reduced. Therefore, an adequate channel analysis for this discharge point is not required. On the other hand, the portion of the site draining to VDOT Culvert 3 -3 is nearly quadrupled. Because of this, more scrutiny should be applied to this downstream system. Upon first glance of the VDOT design drawing and calculations, the pipes downstream appear to be sized adequately for the discharges released from this site. The applicant compares the results of his 10 -year routing showing a peak release rate of 0.238cfs to the design hydrologic data of the culvert which shows a peak discharge of 9.98cfs. However, this comparison is misleading because there has been no analysis provided for the post - development drainage area to this culvert from the Edge Hill Farm property and the routing results from the facility are incorrect because the critical storm was not considered. In addition, the outlet of the drainage system on the south side of Route 250 appears to be eroding currently, which is indicative of an inadequate channel, though no computations have been provided by the applicant in this regard. Rather than providing more calculations for this project which would prolong the review time, I recommend that the applicant make the following changes to the plan to satisfy all County requirements: 1. Convert Facility 1 into a biofilter that has a bed area equal to 4% of the impervious area draining to it. It appears that the bottom bed elevation of 390 will provide a sufficient bed area for the facility, though this should be demonstrated in a short calculation. The modified simple spreadsheet which was first provided by the applicant in the 19 June 2009 submittal showed a required removal rate of 80% and the current proposed SWM facility falls well short of that mark extended detention is granted only a 35% removal rate by VSMH). This biofilter facility should be designed to all requirements outlined in the Design Manual Checklist. 2. Please provide a note on the plan at the outlet of the larger biofilter that a 1 ft deep non - eroding channel is to be provided from the basin outlet to VDOT Culvert 3 -3 as determined by the County Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector. (The condition of this roadside ditch may not be as originally designed.) 3. To meet detention requirements while considering the critical storm, please provide a 5in. orifice at the elevation of 391. The top of the riser should also be raised so that it is at an elevation of 393.60. All other facility design dimensions appear to be satisfactory (barrel diameter, basin geometry, riser diameter, etc.). 4. Please specify a trash rack on the lower orifice that meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 3.02 of the VSMH. 5. Update ESC sediment basin calculations accordingly. Engineering will grant a waiver for having less than 1 fi of freeboard from the riser top to the emergency spillway. r , . d Ed lot :ki.N 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:C'Ville First Church of the Nazarene [SDP200900050, WP0200900030] Plan preparer:Jimmy L. Taggart [JTagg2(cr.aol.com] Owner /Applicant: Albemarle Edgehill FarmLLC Plan received date: 23 June 2009 Rev 1: 7 October 2009 Rev 2: 11 December 2009 Rev 3: 1 February 2010 Date of comments: 17 July 2009 Rev 1: 22 October 2009 Rev 2: 22 January 2010 Rev 3: 4 February 2010 Reviewer:John P. Diez — Engineering Technician Rev 3: Phil Custer A. Final Site Plan 2. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stormwater maintenance agreement and fee for recordation for any stormwater management facilities. [17 -304E] Rev.1) Comment has not been addressed. Rev.2) Comment has not been addressed. Rev.3) Comment has not been addressed. B. Stormwater Management Plan 23. Please address MS - 19 at the proposed outfall of the proposed pond and at the outfall of structure Rev.2) Please see the memo accompanying this conzment letter. Rev.3) Please see the memo accompanying this comment letter. Albemarle Community' Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 C. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan lS lE AL„i.tr County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Mr. Jim Taggart, PE, Design Engineer; Pastor Bill Willis Church of the Nazarene From:Phil Custer, Current Development Engineer Date:4 February 2010 Subject: First Church of the Nazarene (WPO -2009- 00030) The following comments are provided: 1. Convert Facility 1 into a biofilter that has a bed area equal to 4% of the impervious area draining to it. It appears that the bottom bed elevation of 390 will provide a sufficient bed area for the facility, though this should be demonstrated in a short calculation. The modified simple spreadsheet which was first provided by the applicant in the 19 June 2009 submittal showed a required removal rate of 80% and the current proposed SWM facility falls well short of that mark extended detention is granted only a 35% removal rate by VSMH). This biofilter facility should be designed to all requirements outlined in the Design Manual Checklist. Revision) Please make the following changes to the biofilter design: a. The biofilter bed must be the entire 390 elevation except for the forebay area. The impervious area calculations provided by the applicant are not correct. b. In the embankment section detail, please show the 2.5' soil depth, 1'- 1.5'stone depth, and 6" underdrains as done on the trap conversion detail on sheet 5A. c. The total plantings within the basin biofilter will need to be increased to meet the 1 planting per 1,000sf specified hi' the VSMH due to the expansion required in la. d. The construction of the underdrain appears to be complicated by the four utility crossings. Please provide the following note on sheet 5: The 6" underdrain shall he constructed from the stone layer of the biofilter to daylight at a minimum slope of 0.5 %. The underdrain shall pass two water, fiber optic, and gas lines with a minimum 6" clearance. After construction of the sediment basin, the contractor shall determine the elevation and diameters of all utility lines crossed by the underdrain. The contractor shall report back to the design engineer with this data so he may confirm an adequate crossing of the lines. If the underdrain cannot be constructed and a satisfactory solution cannot be improvised in the_ field, a stormwater amendment will need to be submitted and a gravel trench built through the embankment from the 386.5 elevation to daylight. 4. Please specify a trash rack on the lower orifice that meets the minimum requirements of Chapter x Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 3.02 of the VSMH. Revision) The trash rack should not be flat. The current proposed trash rack will increase the frequency of clogging. 5. Update ESC sediment basin calculations accordingly. Engineering will grant a waiver for having less than 1 ft of freeboard from the riser top to the emergency spillway. Revision) In the calculation table for Trap 2 on Sheet 6, please specif ' the length of the weir as 17ft to match calculations. Please also remove the grading for trap 2 from sheets 3 and 5. 0 1" INgiii111111,11tali 01E11 1 ui15 F 1 Y nuilifiiiiiiiiamma mum I . IMMO fElli A 3 E y. 1111111111Nii Iv o 1111 II IIPIIRI c\ iw IIIINIIILIII ir k lil 111111151T, 11111101 P _ IIIIIIUF1