HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800134 Review Comments 2008-10-21IkGI^
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: WPO -2008- 00091, SDP -2008- 00134; The Meadows Expansion
Plan preparer: Brian Smith, PE
Owner or rep.: Jordan Development Corporation
Plan received date: 09 September 2008
Date of comments: 21 October 2008
Reviewer: Phil Custer
The major site plan amendment, SWM, and ESC plans for The Meadows Expansion, submitted on
9 September 2008, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will
require the following changes:
A. General Review (SDP -2008- 00134)
1. To engineering review, there appear to be several discrepancies between this plan and the
approved rezoning plan. The discrepancies are listed below:
A. The rezoning plan states that biofilters will be used on site. No biofilters were provided in this
site plan amendment.
B. The location, orientation, and parking of building 8 do not match.
C. In the application plan, a yard was proposed between buildings 10 and 11. SWM facility 2 is
currently proposed in that location.
D. SWM facility 3 has been placed in an area reserved for a future mterparcel connection. This
facility should be relocated.
The Planning Department will need to determine whether the plan is consistent with the approved
rezoning plan. If it is found to be not in general accord with the plan, a determination must be
made by the Zoning Department whether these deviations from the approved ZMA plan can
possibly be approved through a variation by the Director of Planning.
2. Please provide the date of the topographic survey.
3. Please show the stream buffer lines on all applicable sheets.
4. VDOT approval is required. VDOT approval has not been received at this time. As indicated in
the rezoning plan, a left turn lane on northbound Crozet Avenue may be required.
B. Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP -2008- 00134)
1. Slopes steeper than 3:1 require a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover.
2. Please show all necessary signage.
3. Concentrated discharge appears to be running across several sections of the walking path /sidewalk.
Engineering review recommends that the walking path be placed uphill of the outfalls for Basins 2
and 3 and a drop inlet to be added at the northern corner of building 20 to prevent direct
stormwater discharge across these pedestrian areas.
4. Please provide a channel from the existing culvert west of building 8 around the fill for the parking
lot.
5. It appears private sanitary sewer easements are needed for several laterals as they cross property
lines.
6. The plan is missing a few drainage easements. Drainage easements are necessary for pipes
Lmgmeering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
carrying water from public ROW or adjacent parcels.
7. Please show all easements on the Landscape plans. At least one of the new drainage easements
will require the relocation of a proposed tree.
8. All necessary easements must be recorded before the site plan can be approved.
9. Please show sight distance lines for all entrances onto the public ROW.
10. Please provide a VDOT designation on the plan for each new entrance.
11. The minimum radius on an entrance to VDOT ROW is 12.5ft (VDOT's requirement may be
larger).
12. Please provide a traffic generation summary for the site onto the existing public road.
13. Curbing is required in more areas than where it is currently shown on the plan. In all locations
where improvements are made, curbing is required. Curbing requirements can only be waived by
Current Development Engineering when pavement drains to Stormwater Management Facilities.
14. Please provide a VDOT designation for the endsections in the profiles.
15. Please specify the grate type for each DI -1.
16. Concrete inlet shaping IS -1 is required on all structures with a 411 or greater drop, including drops
from surface level.
17. In the profiles, please label and dimension the outlet protection from each pipe system.
18. The profiles for 3 culverts are missing from the plan. Spot elevations for culvert inverts should
also be provided in plan view.
19. Calculations for the culverts are required. Culverts must not have a head greater than 1.5 x
Diameter and the water level must be 18" below the shoulder elevation.
20. The inlet drainage area map is missing watersheds for several existing and proposed structures and
channels. The text on the plan is also difficult to read.
21. For each watershed in the inlet drainage area map, please provide the average C -value and time of
concentration. [DM]
C. Stormwater Management Plan Review (WPO -2008- 00091)
1. SWM facility 3 should be moved outside of the area reserved for interparcel connection.
2. A copy of the Lickinghole Basin pro -rata share for the site will be calculated by County
Engineering once the plans are ready for approval.
3. For each watershed in the SWM facility drainage area maps (both pre and post), please provide the
average hydrologic coefficient.
4. During the review of the plan I've found the following discrepancies that should be corrected on
the next submittal:
A. The embankment details for Basin 1 and 2 specify widths of 8ft, but both embankments
are shown wider on the plan. All embankments are satisfactory as drawn in plan view.
B. The invert of the culvert in Basin 3 is mislabeled in the section detail.
C. The grading for Basin 2 does not appear to show an emergency spillway at elevation 633
as suggested in the embankment detail. It does not appear that a spillway is necessary for
this facility and the grading can remain as shown
D. A 664 contour line is labeled as 666 in Basin 3.
Please provide an overall detention compliance table for each facility.
The latest (July 2005) 24 hour rainfall totals for the 2, 10, and 100 years storms are 3.7m., 5.6in,
and 9.1 in., respectively. Please update calculations.
Please raise the elevation of the incoming 15 pipes in storm lines E and D to the highest invert as
possible to limit the backing water into the smaller pipe.
The SWM portion of the bond will be computed when the plans are ready for approval.
Additional requirements may be necessary depending on the determinations of the Planning and
Zoning Departments regarding the biofilters shown on the approved rezoning plan. Please see
comment A.I.A.
gmeering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review (WPO -2008- 00091)
1. Engineering review is concerned about the lack of adequate channels for all of the concentrated
discharge from pipes and channels. Please provide channel adequacy calculations or provide level
spreaders at each outfall. Each level spreader should be included inside either a SWM or drainage
easement depending on where the water is coming from.
2. A sediment trap appears to be necessary at the end of the reconstructed channel (west of the two
15" cedar trees) between buildings 8 and 9. A fill diversion should be extended to the west to
direct all runoff for the area around building 8 to this trap.
3. The elevation of the dam in sediment trap 1 should be 1 ft above the crest elevation of the weir.
Engineering review recommends that a culvert inlet sediment trap be used in this location so
minimal earthwork is required when converting from ESC to SWM in the final stage of
construction. Please see VESCH standard 3.08 for CIP -ST requirements.
4. Not all land disturbances have been included in the limits of construction. For instance, the
waterline across Meadows Drive is not shown within the limits of construction.
5. Please place a construction entrance near building 20. The gravel base of the parking lot can be
used as a construction entrance during the earthwork operations as long as it meets the minimum
dimensions for a CE.
6. The existing soil boundaries on the plan are confusing. Please clarify or provide a smaller map
detail on another sheet.
7. Please provide a staging and parking area on the plan. The parking spaces and areas adjacent to
each building could be used as parking and staging areas.
S. Four hundred feet of additional silt fence is needed on sheet SS -1 for the construction of the
sanitary sewer line.
9. Silt fence is needed downhill of the private sanitary sewer line on sheet ESC -3.
10. The ESC portion of the bond will be computed when the plans are ready for approval.
lti
OF AL$.
V1 C' J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
October 22, 2008
Brian Smith, PE
Via email: bospePembargmail.com
Via fax: 434.296.2041
RE: SDP2008 -134 The Meadows Expansion — Major Amendment
Dear Brian:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above.
Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development
and other agencies, as applicable, are attached:
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer)
Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911)
Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board)
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed,
and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to
identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project.
Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by
the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit
in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and
one (1) 11 " x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to
each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by November 3, 2008. Failure to
submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will
resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Summer Frederick
i.
Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
F AI.g,
IkGINt
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
To: Brian P Smith, PE
From: Summer Frederick
Division: Zoning & Current Development
Date: October 21, 2008
Subject: SDP2008 -134 The Meadows Expansion — Major Amendment
The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County
Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to
above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following
comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or
conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.]
1. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please include all applicable conditions from ZMA 2003 -05
The Meadows Expansion in list form on Cover Sheet.
2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] All required information for adjacent parcels (owner, zoning,
tax map and parcel numbers, and present use), including those across Crozet
Avenue must be included on plan.
3. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please include a graphic representation of all set back lines
on plan.
4. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Percentage and acreage of open space must be included on
schedules on Cover Sheet.
5. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b), 18- 32.6.6(a), 18- 32.6.6(g)] Numbers in the parking schedule
on the Cover Sheet do not accurately reflect number of parking spaces shown on
site plan sheets. Counted parking spaces shown on site plan sheets do not meet
minimum parking requirements for proposed development. Please correct.
Additionally, please provide accurate measurements for all parking spaces. This
may be accomplished by providing typical measurements.
6. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(c)] If any phasing is planned for the proposed development,
please provide phase lines and proposed timing of development.
7. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(f)] Please include name and location of all watercourses
adjacent to or on site.
8. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(h), 18- 32.6.6(d)7] Please show one hundred year flood plain as
shown on the official flood insurance maps for Albemarle County.
9. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(f)] Please provide appropriate signature panel on Cover Sheet.
10. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(i), 18- 32.6.6(j)] Please provide landscape and lighting plans on
separate sheets.
Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296-
5832 ext. 3565 for further information.
ti
Lf Y
r
kmtiF'
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: WPO -2008- 00091, SDP -2008- 00134; The Meadows Expansion
Plan preparer: Brian Smith, PE
Owner or rep.: Jordan Development Corporation
Plan received date: 09 September 2008
Date of comments: 21 October 2008
Reviewer: Phil Custer
The major site plan amendment, SWM, and ESC plans for The Meadows Expansion, submitted on
9 September 2008, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will
require the following changes:
A. General Review (SDP - 2008 - 00134)
1. To engineering review, there appear to be several discrepancies between this plan and the
approved rezoning plan. The discrepancies are listed below:
A. The rezoning plan states that biofilters will be used on site. No biofilters were provided in this
site plan amendment.
B. The location, orientation, and parking of building 8 do not match.
C. In the application plan, a yard was proposed between buildings 10 and 11. SWM facility 2 is
currently proposed in that location.
D. SWM facility 3 has been placed in an area reserved for a future interparcel connection. This
facility should be relocated.
The Planning Department will need to determine whether the plan is consistent with the approved
rezoning plan. If it is found to be not in general accord with the plan, a determination must be
made by the Zoning Department whether these deviations from the approved ZMA plan can
possibly be approved through a variation by the Director of Planning.
2. Please provide the date of the topographic survey.
3. Please show the stream buffer lines on all applicable sheets.
4. VDOT approval is required. VDOT approval has not been received at this time. As indicated in
the rezoning plan, a left turn lane on northbound Crozet Avenue may be required.
B. Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP -2008 - 00134)
1. Slopes steeper than 3:1 require a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover.
2. Please show all necessary signage.
3. Concentrated discharge appears to be running across several sections of the walking path /sidewalk.
Engineering review recommends that the walking path be placed uphill of the outfalls for Basins 2
and 3 and a drop inlet to be added at the northern corner of building 20 to prevent direct
stormwater discharge across these pedestrian areas.
4. Please provide a channel from the existing culvert west of building 8 around the fill for the parking
lot.
5. It appears private sanitary sewer easements are needed for several laterals as they cross property
lines.
6. The plan is missing a few drainage easements. Drainage easements are necessary for pipes
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
carrying water from public ROW or adjacent parcels.
7. Please show all easements on the Landscape plans. At least one of the new drainage easements
will require the relocation of a proposed tree.
8. All necessary easements must be recorded before the site plan can be approved.
9. Please show sight distance lines for all entrances onto the public ROW.
10. Please provide a VDOT designation on the plan for each new entrance.
11. The minimum radius on an entrance to VDOT ROW is 12.5ft (VDOT's requirement may be
larger).
12. Please provide a traffic generation summary for the site onto the existing public road.
13. Curbing is required in more areas than where it is currently shown on the plan. In all locations
where improvements are made, curbing is required. Curbing requirements can only be waived by
Current Development Engineering when pavement drains to Stormwater Management Facilities.
14. Please provide a VDOT designation for the endsections in the profiles.
15. Please specify the grate type for each DI -1.
16. Concrete inlet shaping IS -1 is required on all structures with a 4ft or greater drop, including drops
from surface level.
17. In the profiles, please label and dimension the outlet protection from each pipe system.
18. The profiles for 3 culverts are missing from the plan. Spot elevations for culvert inverts should
also be provided in plan view.
19. Calculations for the culverts are required. Culverts must not have a head greater than 1.5 x
Diameter and the water level must be 18" below the shoulder elevation.
20. The inlet drainage area map is missing watersheds for several existing and proposed structures and
channels. The text on the plan is also difficult to read.
21. For each watershed in the inlet drainage area map, please provide the average C -value and time of
concentration. [DM]
C. Stormwater Management Plan Review (WPO -2008- 00091)
1. SWM facility 3 should be moved outside of the area reserved for interparcel connection.
2. A copy of the Lickinghole Basin pro -rata share for the site will be calculated by County
Engineering once the plans are ready for approval.
3. For each watershed in the SWM facility drainage area maps (both pre and post), please provide the
average hydrologic coefficient.
4. During the review of the plan I've found the following discrepancies that should be corrected on
the next submittal:
A. The embankment details for Basin 1 and 2 specify widths of 8ft, but both embankments
are shown wider on the plan. All embankments are satisfactory as drawn in plan view.
B. The invert of the culvert in Basin 3 is mislabeled in the section detail.
C. The grading for Basin 2 does not appear to show an emergency spillway at elevation 633
as suggested in the embankment detail. It does not appear that a spillway is necessary for
this facility and the grading can remain as shown
D. A 664 contour line is labeled as 666 in Basin 3.
5. Please provide an overall detention compliance table for each facility.
6. The latest (July 2005) 24 hour rainfall totals for the 2, 10, and 100 years storms are 3.7in., 5.6in,
and 9.1in., respectively. Please update calculations.
7. Please raise the elevation of the incoming 15" pipes in storm lines E and D to the highest invert as
possible to limit the backing water into the smaller pipe.
8. The SWM portion of the bond will be computed when the plans are ready for approval.
9. Additional requirements may be necessary depending on the determinations of the Planning and
Zoning Departments regarding the biofilters shown on the approved rezoning plan. Please see
comment A.l .A.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review (WPO -2008 - 00091)
1. Engineering review is concerned about the lack of adequate channels for all of the concentrated
discharge from pipes and channels. Please provide channel adequacy calculations or provide level
spreaders at each outfall. Each level spreader should be included inside either a SWM or drainage
easement depending on where the water is coming from.
2. A sediment trap appears to be necessary at the end of the reconstructed channel (west of the two
15" cedar trees) between buildings 8 and 9. A fill diversion should be extended to the west to
direct all runoff for the area around building 8 to this trap.
3. The elevation of the dam in sediment trap 1 should be l ft above the crest elevation of the weir.
Engineering review recommends that a culvert inlet sediment trap be used in this location so
minimal earthwork is required when converting from ESC to SWM in the final stage of
construction. Please see VESCH standard 3.08 for CIP -ST requirements.
4. Not all land disturbances have been included in the limits of construction. For instance, the
waterline across Meadows Drive is not shown within the limits of construction.
Please place a construction entrance near building 20. The gravel base of the parking lot can be
used as a construction entrance during the earthwork operations as long as it meets the minimum
dimensions for a CE.
The existing soil boundaries on the plan are confusing. Please clarify or provide a smaller map
detail on another sheet.
Please provide a staging and parking area on the plan. The parking spaces and areas adjacent to
each building could be used as parking and staging areas.
Four hundred feet of additional silt fence is needed on sheet SS -I for the construction of the
sanitary sewer line.
9. Silt fence is needed downhill of the private sanitary sewer line on sheet ESC -3.
10. The ESC portion of the bond will be computed when the plans are ready for approval.
TO: Summer Frederick, Planner
FROM: Gary Whelan, Civi:i Engineer
DATE: January 15, 2007
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Meadows Expansion
TM 56, Par. 14B,14C & 14C1)
The below checked items apply to this site. SDP - 2007 -00002
X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's
jurisdictional area for:
X A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C. Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
X 2. An 8 inch water line is located onsite.
X 3. Fire flow from nearest public hydrant, located
onsite, is 2312 gpm + at 20 psi residual.
X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located onsite.
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be
completed.
X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed
within existing or future easements.
7. and plans are currently under review.
8. and plans have been received and
approved.
9. No plans are required.
X 10. Final water and sewer plans are required for our
review and approval prior to granting tentative
approval.
11. Final site plan may /may not be signed.
12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections.
Comments:
The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows:
meter locations waterline size
waterline locations sewer line size
sewer line locations expected wastewater flows
easements expected water demands
r
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
DAVID S. EKERN, P.E.
COMMISSIONER
October 21 ", 2008
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Department of Engineering and Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments October 23 2008 site review meeting
Dear Mr. Brooks:
Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the October 23 Site Review Committee Meeting:
SDP - 2008 -00134 The Meadows ExDansion — Final (Summer Frederick
1. All connections to Rte. 1230 need to be designed in accordance with VDOT's Road Design Manual and
The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. The plans needs to include all dimensions of
proposed roads and entrances along with horizontal and vertical data.
2. Sight distances need to be shown on the plans.
3. All work within the VDOT R/W needs to be permitted by VDOT's Charlottesville Office.
4. The ROW around the cul -de -sac needs to be checked for accuracy. The ROW should not include
private structures.
5. Detectable Warning needs to be added to the crosswalk.
SDP- 2008 -00142 Hydraulic Wash — Maior (Elizabeth Marotta)
1. The entrance needs to be constructed to The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways.
Throat widths, setbacks and grades in accordance with the CG -I l standard need to be shown on
the plan.
2. Show the locations of the CG -12's
SDP - 2008 -00146 Hollymead Town Center -Area C Block 9 -Maior (Gerald Gatobu)
1. Indicate whether Laurel Park Lane is proposed to be public or private. If it's public, the entrances
will need to be evaluated.
SDP -2008- 00147 St. Anne's Belfield Lower / Middle School — Prelim. ( Summer Frederick
1. Pipe and ditch computations need to be submitted on the section of Route 855 that is being
proposed for widening.
2. Drainage structure 17 is being proposed to be modified to accept water from the ditch in the back
of the DI. This design needs to be revised to eliminate this modified structure for maintenance
reasons.
3. Show existing and proposed ROW on the plans.
4. Show sight distance triangles at all intersections.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District October 24, 2008
706 Forest St, Ste G
Charlottesville, VA 22903
975-0224
TO: Summer Frederick -
Planning Departmej
E: Soils Report and Comments for-
ac 3
Ile
0
4 (c
Crozef
6bD
5,G
7c
3 3
37D 2'L—
4F
78 7479IRTj[ 4E
LV
7B
ZbU
C2 3/C3 '
VD-' 7H
78
56
3( 4-
66F- 3"D3J / — \ r' X56 ) \
2 5B
4E
P,C4D 4E
73
E gFt / ':.t', _.i/ ii 1 _. µ - r` \ /
r // ._ _..-- ' \ \'i
2 6 3eB
J `` iC it \ `,, , I,
y
H-1. 3 16)
5B
713
7C3
7S
2"3
Cam . , _. f C 1, i 36C t 1`' i
rch
NI
31(,
3 4E
88
3
36E
7 B
7
78 37Dz;I }/ \ /I\ 3.t3 } t v . 'Jr 3rG. v \ -
76 4F1,4.4 ( ,
ac ` r -- \ '^ h I._ -._.ter ""-,. Vt \ I 4E 3\
37P3
5bB f-ec
S 3 /4,
zef
3 E
7B
37D3 4E
36c
4L--
USDA united States Natural
Department of Resources
Agriculture Conservation
Service
Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water
Conservation District
434 - 975 -0224
Soils Report
SOILS REPORT FOR: The Meadows Expansion
Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map Unit: 4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Ashe is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface
layer is loam about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest
permeability is moderately rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil
is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land
capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Ashe is a steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10
inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately
rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not
ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7e.
The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Dyke is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt
loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest
permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil
is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land
capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is O. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit. 26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Dyke is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay
loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest
permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil
is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land
capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is O. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Hayesville is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is
loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability
is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is
Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 10/24/08
not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is
2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 3703 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is
clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest
permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not
flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability
classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric.
Map Unit: 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded
Description Category: Virginia FOTG
Hayesville is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam
about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is
moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is
not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is
6e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric.
Dwellings With Basements - Dominant Condition
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited
percent slopes
4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Very limited
percent slopes
25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited
percent slopes
260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited
percent slopes, severely
eroded
36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Not limited
percent slopes
370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited
15 percent slopes, severely
eroded
37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited
to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 10/24/08
Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Very limited
percent slopes
percent slopes
4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Very limited
percent slopes
percent slopes
25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited
percent slopes
percent slopes
26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited
percent slopes, severely
percent slopes, severely
eroded
eroded
36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited
percent slopes
percent slopes
370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited
15 percent slopes, severely
15 percent slopes, severely
eroded
eroded
37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited
to 25 percent slopes,
to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
severely eroded
Mapunit Hydric Rating
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric
percent slopes
4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 Not hydric
percent slopes
25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric
percent slopes
26C3 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric
percent slopes, severely
eroded
36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric
percent slopes
37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Not hydric
15 percent slopes, severely
eroded
37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Not hydric
to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 10/24/08
Soil Shrink - Swell - Dominant Soil
Top Depth : 0
Bottom Depth : 0
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 1.5
percent slopes
4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 1.5
percent slopes
25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 1.5
percent slopes
260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 1.5
percent slopes, severely
eroded
36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 1.5
percent slopes
370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 1.5
15 percent slopes, severely
eroded
37133 Hayesville clay loam, 15 1.5
to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition
Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia
Survey Status: Published
Correlation Date: 12/01/1981
Distribution Date: 10/21/2002
Map
Symbol Soil Name Rating
4D Ashe loam, 15 to 25 High
percent slopes
4E Ashe loam, 25 to 45 High
percent slopes
25B Dyke silt loam, 2 to 7 Moderate
percent slopes
260 Dyke clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate
percent slopes, severely
eroded
36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Moderate
percent slopes
37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate
15 percent slopes, severely
eroded
37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Moderate
to 25 percent slopes,
severely eroded
Thomas Jetterson SWCD 4 10/24/08
Albemarle co
Service Auth4rit
Serving Conserving February 12, 2009
Brian P. Smith, P.E.
105 West High Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: The Meadows Expansion
Dear Mr. Smith:
The plan, entitled "The Meadows Expansion Major Site Plan Amendment"
dated November 5, 2007, last revised February 6, 2009, 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.
This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is
not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void.
The pressure for water may exceed 80 psi at some meter locations
If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please give us a call at
434) 977 -4511.
Sincerely,
Jeremy M. Lynn, P.E.
JML /anw Senior Civil Engineer
cc: Jordan Development Corporation
State Health Department
Current Development, Bill Fritz
Bldg Codes & Zoning Services
Soil Erosion Inspector
9 VA 22911 •Tel (434) 977 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthnr;fi/ org
o Ey,1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: WPO- 2008 - 00091, SDP -2008- 00134; The Meadows Expansion
Plan preparer: Brian Smith, PE
Owner or rep.: Jordan Development Corporation
Plan received date: (Rev. 1) 06 February 2009
09 September 2008
Date of comments: (Rev. 1) 17March 2009
21 October 2008
Reviewer: Phil Custer
The major site plan amendment, SWM, and ESC plans for The Meadows Expansion, submitted on
06 February 2009, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will
require the following changes:
A. General Review (SDP- 2008 - 00134)
B. The location, orientation, and parking of building 8 do not match.
Rev. 1) Review from the Director of Planning is pending. His determination will be
forwarded to you once it has been made.
The Planning Department will need to determine whether the plan is consistent with the approved
rezoning plan. If it is found to be not in general accord with the plan, a determination must be
made by the Zoning Department whether these deviations from the approved ZMA plan can
possibly be approved through a variation by the Director of Planning.
4. VDOT approval is required. VDOT approval has not been received at this time. As indicated in
the rezoning plan, a left turn lane on northbound Crozet Avenue may be required.
Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received by the County.
engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
B. Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP -2008- 00134)
1. Slopes steeper than 3:1 require a low maintenance, non - grassed groundcover.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. The groundcover must be non grass. For a list of
suitable groundcovers, please see Table 3.37C of the VESCH. Engineering review is open to
similar groundcovers not on the list proposed by the applicant.
2. Please show all necessary signage.
Rev. I) Please provide a stop sign at the five entrances onto the VDOT road and at the
travelway south of building 13. Please show the existing "Do Not Enter" and "One Way"
directional signs on this plan.
6. The plan is missing a few drainage easements. Drainage easements are necessary for pipes
carrying water from public ROW or adjacent parcels.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed. An easement is needed for the culvert west of
building 8 and for the drainage pipes that cross the property boundary between TMP 56 -14C1
and 56 -14C.
7. Please show all easements on the Landscape plans. At least one of the new drainage easements
will require the relocation of a proposed tree.
Rev. 1) Drainage easements do not appear to be shown on the site plan though all trees appear
to be out of the easement. Please show the easements on the landscape plan.
8. All necessary easements must be recorded before the site plan can be approved.
Rev. 1) Comment remains the same.
10. Please provide a VDOT designation on the plan for each new entrance.
Rev. 1) Please call out a specific VDOT standard for each entrance onto the VDOT road. (PE-
I looks appropriate to me, though please verify with VDOT.)
11. The minimum radius on an entrance to VDOT ROW is 12.5ft (VDOT's requirement may be
larger).
Rev. 1) Please see the entrance to building 8.
ngineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
18. The profiles for 3 culverts are missing from the plan. Spot elevations for culvert inverts should
also be provided in plan view.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
19. Calculations for the culverts are required. Culverts must not have a head greater than 1.5 x
Diameter and the water level must be 18" below the shoulder elevation.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
20. The inlet drainage area map is missing watersheds for several existing and proposed structures and
channels. The text on the plan is also difficult to read.
Rev. 1) The text has been made clearer however there are still a few structures without the
drainage areas delineated. The watershed for three new culverts and the existing culvert south
of build 8 should be shown.
21. For each watershed in the inlet drainage area map, please provide the average C -value and time of
concentration. [DM]
Rev. I) The average C -value for each watershed is not specified on DP -1.
C. Stormwater Management Plan Review (WPO -2008- 00091)
2. A copy of the Lickinghole Basin pro -rata share for the site will be calculated by County
Engineering once the plans are ready for approval.
Rev. 1) Comment remains the same.
3. For each watershed in the SWM facility drainage area maps (both pre and post), please provide the
average hydrologic coefficient.
Rev. 1) The watershed to facility 4 does not appear to be accurate. The culvert entering D -6
seems to have a watershed that is not considered.
4. During the review of the plan I've found the following discrepancies that should be corrected on
the next submittal:
A. The embankment details for Basin 1 and 2 specify widths of 8ft, but both embankments
are shown wider on the plan. All embankments are satisfactory as drawn in plan view.
Rev. 1) The embankment for Basin 1 still does not match between the plan and detail.
ngmeering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
The SWM portion of the bond will be computed when the plans are ready for approval.
Rev. 1) Comment remains the same.
Rev. I) Please show all downspout roofdrain pipes on the site plan sheets for buildings 10, 11,
and 12. The SWMplan assumes that the rear of these buildings drain to detention facilities
and this should be shown.
11. (Rev. 1) Please specify trash racks on the orifices in the underground detention facility.
However, please see comment DI. This comment may not be necessary.)
12. (Rev. 1) Please provide a low flow channel in Basin 2 from the west end.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review (WPO- 2008 - 00091)
1. Engineering review is concerned about the lack of adequate channels for all of the concentrated
discharge from pipes and chamlels. Please provide channel adequacy calculations or provide level
spreaders at each outfall. Each level spreader should be included inside either a SWM or drainage
easement depending on where the water is coming from.
Rev. I) Please move the level spreader of basin 2 farther east so it does not direct water onto
the trunks of existing trees. The level spreader for Basin 3 should be adjusted so the outfall isperpendiculartothecontourlines.
After further consideration of the existing conditions on a site visit, I do not think the use of
level spreaders at the outfall of basin I and the underground facility are appropriate. The use
of level spreaders assumes a well stabilized outfall and a low chance of reconcentration. In
both of these cases, the water would be directed into a treeline where tree trunks and root mats
would not allow uniform sheet flow. The water would also recollect immediately after outfall in
downstream gullel s /channels. Please provide a new graded channel from the outfall from the
site at Basins 1 and 4 to the perennial stream at the northern edge of the property. The channel
should be sized and armored accordingly. Engineering review will grant a detention waiver for
these drainage areas (Basins I and 4) due to the large watershed of Slabtown Branch. A public
drainage easement should be provided for the channel along Crozet Avenue because it will
carry VDOT water.
In addition, the swale at trap 1 should remain a graded trapezoidal channel until it intersects
the constructed channel from Basin I.
2. A sediment trap appears to be necessary at the end of the reconstructed channel (west of the two
15" cedar trees) between buildings 8 and 9. A fill diversion should be extended to the west to
direct all runoff for the area around building 8 to this trap.
Rev. 1) Sediment traps must have I foot front the top of dam to the crest of the stone weir.
Please also show the stone weir in plan view.
3. The elevation of the dam in sediment trap 1 should be 1 ft above the crest elevation of the weir.
Engineering review recommends that a culvert inlet sediment trap be used in this location so
minimal earthwork is required when converting from ESC to SWM in the final stage of
construction. Please see VESCH standard 3.08 for C1P -ST requirements.
Rev. 1) In the first phase of construction, facility I should be built and the culvert should be
protected as a CIP- sediment trap (VESCH Plate 3.08 -2). There is no need to construct
sediment trap 2 and then construct the culvert inletprotection sediment trap. (However, please
see comment DI. This comment may not be necessary.)
a- -agineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
4. Not all land disturbances have been included in the limits of construction. For instance, the
waterline across Meadows Drive is not shown within the limits of construction.
Rev. 1) Comment has not been addressed.
9. Silt fence is needed downhill of the private sanitary sewer line on sheet ESC -3.
Rev. I) Comment has not been addressed. The sanitary line North of the community center
needs ESC measures.
10. The ESC portion of the bond will be computed when the plans are ready for approval.
Rev. 1) Comment remains the same.
11. (Rev. 1) On sheet ESC -4, please provide a note adjacent to Basin 2 stating that Basin 2 must be
fully constructed and the CIP installed before anh other construction south of Meadows Dr. can
begin.
AL,6
r
IRGIN
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832
March 31, 2009
Mr. Brian P. Smith, P.E.
105 West High Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Fax (434) 972 -4126
RE: SDP 2008 -00134 — Request to vary Application Plan for The Meadows
Expansion (ZMA 2003 -0005)
Dear Mr. Smith:
The County has received your variation request referenced above. The variation request
includes three items:
1. Use of other stormwater management methods in place of biofilters;
2. The placement of a stormwater management facility in the area shown as a yard
on the application plan between buildings 10 and 11;
3. The location of parking to serve buildings 8 and 9.
We have determined that only the third item needs a variation. This variation allows for
the relocation of parking that serves buildings 8 and 9, as labeled on the attachments
provided, from a central location between the two buildings to separate parking lots
behind each building. This letter serves to provide approval of the variation in keeping
with the layout of parking and buildings as shown on the final site plan for the project,
SDP 2008 - 00134.
The analysis of the variation request is provided below:
Section 8.5.5.3 (a.2) allows the director to grant a variation of an approved plan for
changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the
major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same. The following
are the five criteria used to determine that this variation request is acceptable and the
response to each:
1) The variation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan. It is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Meadows Variation
March 31, 2009
2) The variation does not increase the approved development density or
intensity of development. No increase in density or intensity is proposed
with the variation request for only minor layout changes.
3) The variation does not adversely affect the timing and phasing of
development of any other development in the zoning district. Timing and
phasing is not affected by the variation request.
4) The variation does not require a special use permit. No special use permit
is required.
5) The variation is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the
approved rezoning application. It is in general accordance with the rezoning
application and represents a minor change to the arrangement of parking
only. The major features and elements shown on the application plan and
their relationships remain the same and parking lots will be relegated behind
the buildings.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Rebecca
Ragsdale or myself at 296 -5823 Ext. 3439.
Sincerely,
iw
Wayn Cilimberg
Director of Planning
Cc: Summer Frederick, S nio tanner- Current Development
The Meadows Variation
March 31, 2009