Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WPO201400038 Review Comments 2015-01-14
pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) (Rev. 2) (Rev. 3) Reviewer: VSMP Permit plan review Emerson Commons (Sheeflee Cohousing) Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc [ 1260 Radford Street, Christiansburg, VA 24073 — kconner @gayandneel.com] Peter Lazar, Sheeflee LLC [1730 Sage Lane, Blacksburg, VA 24060 p eterlazar(ab gmail. com] 24 Mar 2014 26 Aug 2014 11 Dec 2014 (.PDF files) 06 Jan 2015 15 May 2014 9 Oct 2014 11 Dec 2014 (e- review / .PDF files) 14 Jan 2015, Approved John Anderson County Code section 17 -410 and Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:34 require the VSMP authority to act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is Approved. Prior comments have been addressed. [VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -401.] -see Also, Gay and Neel, Inc. response to comment Letter, d. 30- Dec -14 A. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0201400038) VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP. This plan is approved. —see Also EMAIL, J.Anderson to T. Sproul, 1/14/15 [Wed 1/14/2015 10:33 AM]. The stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403. SWMP Comments L -19., and New #1. -11, ref 9 Oct 2014 comments. B. Erosion Control Plan (WP0201400038) Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan is approved. — see Also EMAIL, J.Anderson to T. Sproul, 1/14/15 [Wed 1/14/2015 10:33 AM]. The erosion control plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -402. ESCP Comments L -3., and New #1. -4, ref. 9 Oct 2014 comments C. Road plans (SDP200800074) - ACSA REVIEW and APPROVAL required / Utility plans Road Plan Comments 1.- 10, ref. 9 Oct 2014 comments. - Also: 18- Nov -13 Engineering review comments [Michelle Roberge] D. Mitigation plans (WP0201400038) Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 Mitigation Plan Comments 1.- 4, ref. 9 Oct 2014 comments. E. Final Plat For the record, the roads internal to the site, serving the homes, do not meet any road standard. They would not be adequate for a subdivision of the property, and they have not been reviewed as roads. (Rev. 1) Comment NA. Property is not intended to be subdivided (response /Aug 13, 2014). The VSMP permit application and plans accompanying — including ESOP, SWMP, Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Narrative (rev. 12- Nov -14), and SWPPP* (14- Nov -14) —are approved. [* SWPPP reviewed, found complete / County approval of SWPPP not required] Process: Plans need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2 -4 weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms. Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded. The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees. After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database for state application processing (VAR10F561 permit coverage letter d. 6/30/14 expired June 30, 2014 [same date]). DEQ will review the application information based on local VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will (re- )issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county. After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre - construction conference. Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre - construction conference form, and pay the remainder of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre - construction conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre - construction conference, should everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that work may begin. County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering; httt)://www.albemarle.org/dei)tfonns.asi)?deDartment=cdenizwDo File: WP0201400038- Emerson_sheeflee cohousing- 011415rev2 John Anderson From: Tom Sproul [tsproul @gayandneel.com] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 11:20 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Kevin Conner Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) John, I just called and left a message, but thought I'd email you too just in case. I had a few questions /comments about your comments about the SWPPP. Below I copied your comments and put my questions in there: Last item — please revise Registration Statement to include 12-digit HUC (for DEQ Database): JR02 = 020802040102 Is this an Albemarle County thing? It's not a big issue, but I do know that the DEQ specifically says that either is OK. http: / /www.deg.vir2inia.2ov/ Portals /0 /DEQ/Water /Publications /CGP -GIS HUC Instructions.pdf Hrw b3 Obtain the 61h Or3ler Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) The 61h order Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is a four -digit watershed code (2 letters followed by 2 numbers; e.g. "IL12' or "YO 16") or a 12 -digit number [e.g. "020801010101 "). Either one is acceptable. Once you have zoomed to the project sine, display the HUC boundaries Check the box next to 2OOB 6TH ORDER NWBD HUC located to the left of the map in the layers window 1130/2014 Vkuinda JLQ_Uame VEGIS Holm - Wet map RgSUI #c r�aale Laver 4flfiun+ p jit YMimby DEq Offimc []0a4 0 vRPF� {2a44} EJ VILP blteo (2adG5 Q RGRA C6rr2CbH9 A€lr6n (2012) ® SCIPrt Waite f2o09) Q 2017 Maniknrinq Stationc 2412 Wavers 2012 Eeludrles 0 21117 Rasorrain: TMDL walersfitis ❑ 2446 6th Order MW90 HLPC 0 DEQ R9plans (3869) 2. Sec. 6.D. — Identify individual responsible for pollution prevention practices This is currently impossible as the contractor has not been determined for the site. We have run into this issue with other municipalities too. Technically, the DEQ requires that the SWPPP contain: • An approved ESC plan • An approved SWM plan • A P2 (Pollution Prevention) plan (not necessary to be approved) The SWPPP itself does not need to be approved. I recognize that Albemarle County may have different codes that require an approved SWPPP, but let me try to explain why this causes a problem. The SWPPP is an evolving document that gets updated as the project progresses. On public projects that have a "Design, Bid, Build" process, it is impossible to have fully approved construction plans and the contractor identified since the design must be complete and approved prior to the Bidding process. The same idea applies on private projects. If the owner wants to get multiple offers based on a set of approved Final plans, it is impossible to have the contractor identified in the SWPPP. Thus, the "final prepared" SWPPP (again, the SWPPP gets updated during construction) cannot truly be final until the contractor has been determined, which ideally happens after plan approval. Please advise if you have a workaround. Port II A — General Administrative Criteria for Regulated Land - Disturbing Activities Applicability f9VAC25 -870-531 Part 1I A applies to all regulated LVAs. Th is part explains the components of a Construction GP application. The stormwater managemena plan review pr4ce"Ar is detailed later in'IYAC25- 870 -104. Stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) requEements 19VA C 25- 870 -54 f The SWPPP is the cornerstone of the Construction GP and the VSMP. The plan includes prevention measures fQr both oaring and after construction. All SWPPN must contain the Following: 1. Approved erosion and sediment control plan 2. Approved stormwater management plan 3. Pull utiunprcvcntiun plan (P2 Plan) 4. Plan specifying any addltionaJ control measures to meet the requirements ofa TMDL (ifepplicable) The SWPPP must address the following nine requirements: 1. Control stormwater volume and velocity within the site to minimize seil erosion 2. Control s#onnwatur discharges, including peak flow rates and total stormwater volurne, to minimize erasion at outlets and to minimize downstream channel and stream bank erosion 3. Minim lac the arnount ofsoil exposed during construction activity 4. Minim ize the disturbance of steep slopes 5. Min irn iFe sediment discharges from the site through the design, installation and maintenance of controls that address Factors such as; o Amount, frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation Boric Storm ptcF ManogernentCotmsc Module 4 1 Page 10 3. Sec. 8 —Must identify qualified individual — cannot be pending, or blank Same as above. Thomas E. Sproul, E.I.T. Project Engineer tsproul @gayandneel.com 4 Gay and Neel, Inc. (540) 381 -6011 From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2 @albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:24 AM To: Tom Sproul Cc: peterlazar @gmail.com; Kevin Conner Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) Tom, Review has taken longer than hoped. I rushed my note this morning. E -mail works. I have received all notes, all attachments. My oversight. I hope you can see past that. E- reviews are uncommon. Without paper, I can and have lost track more than once on this project. I restate appreciation for design efforts. You have been patient, despite disappointment. With 4 full -size sets of plans, please submit 2 hard copies of SWPPP (original signature), 2 hard copies of SWM /ESC Narratives sent as e- attachments, 26 -Nov (calculations /included). Please call if you like: away 12 -1pm, then back, till 5pm. Last item — please revise Registration Statement to include 12-digit HUC (for DEQ Database): JR02 = 020802040102 Thanks, Tom From: Tom Sproul [mailto:tsproul @gavandneel.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:32 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Kevin Conner; peterlazar @gmail.com Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) John, Thank you for your review. We will call to discuss the remaining SWPPP items shortly. Also attached is the ESC & SWM Narrative. The final stormwater calculations are a part of this document. I have sent this document to you twice and am unsure why you did not receive it. Please confirm that you have received. Thanks, Tom Thomas E. Sproul, E.I.T. Project Engineer tsproul @gayandneel.com Gay and Neel, Inc. (540) 381 -6011 From: John Anderson [mailto:ianderson2 @albemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:08 AM To: Tom Sproul Cc: Kevin Conner; peterlazar @gmail.com Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) Tom, Kevin, Peter- I am able to approve VSMP Application (electronic documents, including SWPPP, ESC /SWM narratives /plans) shared 26 -Nov (or more recently), pending minor revisions to SWPPP: 1. Sec. 6.F. Delete reference to Shadwell Creek 2. Sec. 6.D. — Identify individual responsible for pollution prevention practices 3. Sec. 8 —Must identify qualified individual — cannot be pending, or blank 4. Sec. 9 — Revise signed certification to read exactly as follows — ref VAR 10, Part III K 4 /Certification: 4. ertrfication. Any person signing a document under part III K 1 or 2 shall make the followin! certification; "l certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand this document and that this documer and all attachments were prepared in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualifie personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of th person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering th information, the information submitted is. to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, an complete. I am aware that there are significani penalties for submitting false information, including th possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violat ion s.° Plans, and your efforts, are excellent — thanks for your patience. Please make minor SWPPP revisions, submit 4 copies of full -size plans for approval, submit attached VSMP bond estimate request form with $250 fee (check VSMP block). I will prepare and send formal notice of VSMP Application WPO (ESC, PPP, SWPPP, SWM) approval, and prepare VSMP bond estimate for bond processing. Please note it is essential that I receive revised Final Stormwater Calculations document since response to several comments appear in this document. I have not seen the revised document, but trust comment response statements that revisions have been made and are included in rev. Final Stormwater Calculations document (9 -Oct -14 SWM comments 4, 5). I will be in a meeting the next hour — please feel free to call later this morning. It may be best if you have any questions. Thank you- John E. Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle, Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville, VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext. 3069 From: Tom Sproul [mailto:tsproul @gayandneel.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 8:57 AM To: John Anderson Subject: FW: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) Is this what you need for the SWPPP? Thomas E. Sproul, E.I.T. Project Engineer tsproul @gayandneel.com Gay and Neel, Inc. (540) 381 -6011 From: Tom Sproul Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:03 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Kevin Conner Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) John, Attached is the SWPPP. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Tom Thomas E. Sproul, E.I.T. Project Engineer tsproul @gayandneel.com Gay and Neel, Inc. (540) 381 -6011 From: Tom Sproul Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:07 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Kevin Conner Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) Sure thing, thanks. Thomas E. Sproul, E.I.T. Project Engineer tsproul @Rayandneel.com Gay and Neel, Inc. (540) 381 -6011 From: John Anderson [ mailto :ianderson2 @albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:05 AM To: Tom Sproul Subject: RE: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (JN 1770.3) 9 Tom, I may not get to this today. Tue, 2 -Dec, latest —will review informally so next plan submission, barring surprise, is final, able to approve. Thanks for attachments, link to plans - Take care From: Tom Sproul [mailto:tsproul @gayandneel.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:01 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Kevin Conner; peterlazar @gmail.com; Jo Higgins Subject: FW: Emerson Commons: WPO Submittal (IN 1770.3) John, Attached are the: • ESC & SWM Narrative Comment Response Letter Please note that we are still putting together the SWPPP, but we will include that in the hard copy submittal. Also, we will be sending you a link shortly for the WPO Plan as it was too large to email. We appreciate you looking this over without doing a formal resubmittal. Please don't hesitate to call or email me with any questions. Thanks, Tom Thomas E. Sproul, E.I.T. Project Engineer tsproulCa@gayandneel.com A* 1-% 1 GAV AND NEED, INC. 1 —ENGINEERING7 tANOSCARE ARCHITECTURE SURVEYING 1254 Radford Street • Christiansburg, Virginia 24073 540.381.6011 office • 540.381.2773 fax www.giryaridneel.com • info{'Dgayandneel.corn lu 0'' �pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Sheeflee Cohousing Plan preparer: Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc [ 1260 Radford Streen, Christiansburg, VA 24073 — kconner @gayandneel.com] Owner or rep.: Peter Lazar, Sheeflee LLC [1730 Sage Lane, Blacksburg, VA 24060 p eterlazar(a) email. coml Plan received date: 24 March 2014 (Rev. 1) 26 August 2014 Date of comments: 15 May 2014 (Rev. 1) 9 October 2014 Reviewer: John Anderson County Code section 17 -410 and Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The rationale is given in the comments below. The application may be resubmitted for approval if all of the items below are satisfactorily addressed. The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -401. A. Stormwater Management Plan (WP0201400038) VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403. 1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site development plan. (Rev. 1) Comment noted. 2. Concept is problematic. Final grade and development design allow, in one instance, storm runoff to traverse 210 -ft (including 120 -11 impervious surface) while falling 21 -ft to a bio- retention facility. Ref. C3- 02, 654 -ft contour, falling north along fire lane access /walkway then running between buildings 6 and 7 to SWM #l. See also vehicular /pedestrian path diagram, inset, C2 -01. It appears there is no collection of runoff other than fall of grade to each SWM facility. Have concentrated flow erosive effects been considered during 2- or 10 -yr storms? What impact to walkways, pavement, buildings, or landscape features? Engineering cannot approve design that fails to furnish adequate storm runoff conveyance features. (Rev. 1) Comment noted; see Gay and Neel comment response letter d. August 13, 2014. 3. Design features may not create a nuisance to future residents. Typically, we do not allow SWM facilities on individual lots. In this instance, the proposed SWM facilities are too close to the residences. We need separation between residences and edge of SWM facilities that is at least 20 -ft. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed; with re- design, bioretention facility now 20' from dwelling (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 4. Please model 24 -hr storm; evaluate 2 -, 10 -, 100 -yr storm events against bio - filter designs. The Modified Rational Method does not use a 24 -hr storm distribution. ACCD has adopted SCS method for stormwater management reviews. In reviewing report titled Final Stormwater Calculations, Project Number: 1770.3, Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 8 dated April 25, 2008, revised March 7, 2014, all computations appear to rely on the Modified Rational Method, and appear to be dated April 2008. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. As follow -up to discussion Oct -1 with K. Conner, drainage area or ground cover revisions to VaRRM (.xls) may affect design, may affect models requiring revised DA/cover conditions —ref New #1, below (as well as #5, 16). 5. MS -19 analysis is incomplete (p. 108, report). Rather than the 1% analysis point being a single point of analysis, it is a limit, with points upstream subject to analysis of project contribution to erosion or flooding of downstream natural or manmade channels. Each release point should be analyzed until it reaches an adequate channel. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. As follow -up (as with #4) revised contributing drainage areas (ground cover) may affect 1 -yr, 24 hr storm QDeveloped� QPre- developed rates of runoff. Please revise as necessary MS -19 compliance demonstration, p. -58 Of SHEFLEE COHOUSING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE, AUG. 11, 2014 (hereafter, Narrative report). Narrative report uses energy balance equation (9VAC25- 870- 66.B.3.a. Values, calculations may change): %eveloped 2� I- F. *(QPre- deve lope d* RVPre- Developed)IRVDeveloped -Also #16, below. Please revise units, p. 58: RVd, RVf, RVp =cf, rather than cfs. 6. Computations and model inputs require revision (item #2, above). Report p. 7 post - development drainage area map must match plans. Parking and structures should be identical with proposed development on plan sheets dated 2/27/14 and post - development drainage area map contours should reflect final grade, not pre - development contours. As consequence, impervious areas may change in certain BMP computations. Please revise map and computations as necessary. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed —yet impervious /forest- open space /turf ground cover area values in VaRRM (.xls) may change. —ref New #1, below. 7. Include pre- post - development drainage area maps as sheets in revised plan set. Please be sure post - development drainage area reflects proposed current design (parking, structures, final grade). Show size of each drainage area (square feet, or acreage). (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. As follow -up to Oct -1 discussion, please consider runoff from entire development, including cross - country private sanitary sewer line (C4 -02) and improvements to Parkview Drive (C2- 01 /0-01). 8. V, required treatment volume, Area 4 (p. 24 of report), is somewhat higher than listed (19.88 cy v. 19.7). V, required treatment volume, Area 5, is not included in report. Please include V, Area 5. (Rev. 1) Comment NA, due to change in design. C3 -03, C3 -04: profiles of SWM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are not drawn to scale. Plan views of SWM #1, 2, 3 appear drawn to scale, but scale is unknown. Please furnish plan/profile scale drawings of each SWM biofilter. Without scale, it is difficult to correlate drawings with required flat floor area of biofilters (p. 27 /report). Silt trap retrofit to biofilter typical section, sheet C7 -02 and p. 29 /report, provides guidance, but review and construction necessitate specific design parameters be shown on plans; specifically: clarify selection of soil mix (eliminate reference to state approved soil mix or tested and approved equivalent [C7 -02]); furnish specifications for Luck bio- filter mix or tested and approved equivalent (p. 29 /report). Provide depth of loam or granular earth fill. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. 10. Facility SWM -1 cannot have an emergency spillway passing over unpaved earth and then a wall. Also, see item 11, below. (Rev. 1) Comment NA, due to change in design. 11. VA Stormwater Management Handbook, 3.03 -2, design criteria, Vegetated Emergency Spillway, states that the channel should be excavated into undisturbed earth or rock and the water surface, under maximum New Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 8 design flood discharge, should be confined by undisturbed earth or rock. Please revise vegetated emergency spillways for SWM #1, 3, 4, 5 to avoid fill slopes. Also, see item 10, above. (Rev. 1) Comment NA, due to change in design. 12. SWM #5 is narrow. Floor area is approx 165 -ft x 6 -ft. VSMH, 3.11 -3 states the minimum width for a bioretention area is usually 10 -feet, although widths as narrow as 4 feet may be used if the runoff arrives as dispersed sheet flow along the length of the facility from a properly sized vegetated strip. There appears to be a 2 -ft grass strip between paved surface and embankment of SWM #5. Support or explain width of SWM #5 relative to design objectives. (Rev. 1) Comment NA, due to change in design. 13. 3/7/14 Report (Final Stormwater calculations): we would expect to see post - development t, of 5 -6 min and channel as well as overland length for each drainage area, especially since no runoff collection is proposed. Please review post - development channel length and t, for each DA. Please revise calculations to include reasonable channel length when calculating post - development flow for SWM #5. Also, see items #2 and #12, above. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. As follow -up to discussion 1 -Oct, please review drainage area values used in VaRRM spreadsheet. —ref New #1, below. 14. Retaining walls: Unless 4' high retaining walls are a design element, please revise Non - critical retaining wall section detail on sheet C7 -03. Structural computations with original seal and signature are required for walls over 5 -ft high that support necessary infrastructure (SWM # 1) or affect neighboring property. Typical sections with dimensions for all configurations, reinforcement layout (steel, geogrid, etc), and details for any pipes through a retaining wall, bridged utilities, or penetrations in geogrid must be shown on drawings. Safety railing is required for walls over 4 -ft high. All structural reinforcement (steel, geogrids, etc) must be specified; all dimensions must be specified. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Max wall ht =5'; Redi -rock retaining walls (sheet C2 -01, site plan); handrail /guardrail detail (C7 -01, site plan). Note —New #2 requests that certain sheets now included with site plan also be included with WPO plans. 15. How is runoff from developed areas conveyed to SWM bio- retention facilities? Also, see item #2, above, and item #2, section C, below. (Rev. l) Comment addressed. 16. Report, pp. 108 -109. Delineate project area. Furnish project area acreage on topographic map titled 1% Analysis Point Map, d. 3/6/14. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. As follow -up, revise MS -19 compliance demonstration, p. -58, Narrative report. Revise units: RVd, RVf, RVp =cf, rather than cfs. —ref #5, above. 17. Show existing septic field for 2 -story log dwelling relative to SWM #5, or nearest SWM facility. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Location unknown (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 18. Access easement around SWM -5 facility required. (3/14/14 Applicant response noted.) (Rev. 1) Comment NA, due to change in design. 19. A standard SWM agreement will be necessary for SWM facilities. (3/14/14 Applicant response noted.) Narrative report, p. 6, states: "The site is one parcel with a 6.16 acre area. ...total area of land disturbance for this project is 6.71 acres." Report, p. 26 (VaRRM .xls), and pre- /post - development drainage maps (plan sheets) use areas =7.45 Ac, with 3.20Ac (post - developed) as forest/open space. Several comments: Areas used in VaRMM .xls must be owned, or easements must allow permanent conservation of on- site /off -site forest/open space, if these values are used with VaRRM .xls. I plan to send sec. VDEQ SWM Plan Review Manual that considers post - developed land use /ground cover, as it relates to VaRRM .xls. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 8 Revise areas. Also, consider off -site area land disturbance required to install cross - country sewer line (C4- 02) and widen Parkview Drive (0-01). Ensure that pre- /post- re- development land cover areas are equal. 2. WPO/VSMP plans require additional sheets (now part of site plans); WPO plans should include: CO- 01/02; C2 -01; C3- 01/2/3/4; C4 -02; C5- 01/02; C6 -01; C7- 01/02/03. Include pre /post - (re)development drainage maps. Include drainage maps in index. Revise title, CO -01 (WPO plans) to read: Sheeflee Cohousing WPO/VSMP Plan, WP0201400038. (Not all details on sheets C7 pertain to WPO, but it may be easier to include all details, rather than try to rearrange or eliminate 1 or 2 sheets.) 3. Revise drainage areas shown on pre- and post - development drainage area maps. Include all project - related areas of disturbance. —see #1, above. 4. Furnish General VPDES Permit coverage letter. It is critical that Estimated Area to be Disturbed (VAR10F561) match Area of Disturbance in Narrative report, which it does (6.71Ac). If disturbed area changes, since project is registered having 2014 VPDES permit, then with your permission, ACCD will work with VDEQ to revise database value /s. We request copy of VPDES permit coverage letter. 5. (SWPPP/PPP) While Narrative Report considers potential pollution sources, §17-404 and §17-405 establish plan form and content. A new Albemarle SWPPP template should be available (on -line) Oct -15, or soon thereafter. Longer templates are available now (US EPA, for example). A plan sheet that identifies location of potential pollution sources listed on p. 8 -9 of the Narrative report, as well as plan/profile details of spill containment for refueling, or basins to capture concrete wash -out or entrance wash waters are minimal SWPPP plan/drawing requirements. Examples from other projects are available. 6. Furnish SWPPP/PPP, per §17-404,17-405. SWPPP certification statement is found at VAR10, Part III K 4 (p. 18/21; link: http: / /www.deq.vir inia.gov/Portals /O/DEO/Water /Publications /CGP2014.pdf ). Certification should appear exactly as presented in General Permit VAR10. Please call if any questions. The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -405. A SWPPP must contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SAW, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary, while PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404. 7. Narrative report, p. 56, bioretention design appears to discount upstream BMPs. Current design tied to current DAs appears conservative. After revising DAs, design may benefit if consider runoff removal of upstream BMPs. Tv (p. 56) = 2775.14cf, but T,, (bioretention) appears = 1517cf —ref p. 31 (VaRRM .xls). 8. BMPs include: Spec #1, simple rooftop disconnection: Ensure that plans include details and notes listed at htW: / /www.vwrrc.vt. edu/swc /documents /2013 /DEQ %20BMP %2OSpec %2ONo %201 _DISCONNECTION _Final %20Draft_vl- 9_03012011.pdf needed to aid review and effect proper installation, inspection, and maintenance. Note: SW maintenance agreements will attach to deeds for dwellings utilizing this BMP (dwellings owned separately within undivided parcel). 9. Furnish schedule showing which buildings (Drainage Areas A, B) are disconnected; list impervious area/ea rooftop. Ensure space is available and individual BMPs are shown on C3 -02 (each disconnected rooftop) Furnish private drainage easements for each BMP. 10. BMPs include: Spec #4, grass channel (AB soils): Ensure plans include details and notes found at htW: / /www.vwrrc.vt. edu/swc /documents /2013 /DEQ %20BMP %20 Spec %2ONo %203_GRAS S %20CHAN NELS_ Final %20Draft_vl- 9_03012011.pdf needed to aid review and effect proper installation, inspection, and maintenance. Furnish private drainage easements for each BMP. Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 8 11. BMPs include: Spec #9, bioretention (Level 2): Ensure plans include details and notes from specification at http: / /www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/ documents / 2013 /DEQ %20BMP %20Spec %20No %209 BIORETENTION FinalDrafr vl -9 03012011.pdf needed to aid review and effect proper installation, inspection, and maintenance. Note especially excavation depth requirements listed at p. 33, if bioretention basin location is to be used as a sediment trap (as is the case in this instance): M. Construction Sequence Construction Stage E &S Controls. Micro- bioretention and small -scale bioretention areas should be fully protected by silt fence or construction Fencing, particularly if they will rely on infiltration (i.e., have no underdrains). Ideally, bioretention should remain outside the limit of disturbance during construction to prevent soil compaction by heavy equipment. Bioretention basin locations may be used as small sediment traps or basins during construction. However, these must be accompanied by notes and graphic details on the E &S plan specifying that (1) the maximum excavation depth at the construction stage must be at least 1 foot above the post - construction installation, and (2) the facility must contain an underdrain. The plan must also show the proper procedures for converting the temporary sediment control practice to a permanent bioretention facility, including dewatering, cleanout and stabilization. Include Bioretention Installation Notes, sec. 8.2, Notes (Spec #9), steps 1 -12. Include text/details, preferably verbatim. —p. 34 -35, Spec. #9. Furnish private drainage easements for this BMP. B. Erosion Control Plan (WPO201400038) Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -402. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site development plan. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. As follow -up, see New (SWM) #2, above. 2. Break silt fence for stormwater conveyance channel 5 (SCCS). (Rev. 1) Comment NA, due to change in design. 3. Silt fence is not tree protection. Eliminate notes on sheet C5 -01 that read silt fence at limits of disturbance shall serve as tree protection measure. Ref VESCH, 1992 Edit, for tree protection. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. New: 1. Furnish sediment trap L x W floor dimensions, ST 1 -4, in table, C5 -02. 2. Include ST5 data (C5 -01) in table (C5 -02) identical with that provided for ST 1 -4 3. Furnish ST5 plan / profile schematic, to scale (not VESCH detail). This ST is coincident with bioretention BMP. 4. Furnish paved construction entrance with wash rack — ACDSM /p. -27 [detail /.pdf - Attached] C. Road plans (SDP200800074) (18 Nov 2013 engineering review comment) 1) "Please note the road plan has changed. Please submit a road plan as a separate SUB application. The Albemarle County Engineering Department distributes road plan submittals to our planning staff, and Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 8 to VDOT as a courtesy. We do not distribute or coordinate review with other departments or agencies like Fire & Rescue, Parks and Recreation, ACSA, RWSA, etc. This must be coordinated by the owner or applicant. Approval documentation must be provided from all applicable departments and agencies prior to final road plan approval. Please address the following comment: a) - b) The previous submittal proposed to remove and replace the entire 30" CMP under Parkview Drive. Now, it only replaces two sections of the pipe to EW and ES. The pipe's condition under road is unknown. Please clarify. Show calcs with WPO application." 3/14/14 Applicant response (to 18 Nov 2013 Michelle Roberge comments): "Response: we have calculations on record from a previous submittal showing the two sections of pipe tying into the 30" CMP. These calculations have been provided to verify the pipe is adequate. The condition of the pipe and maintenance of the pipe is the responsibility of the parties involved with Parkview Dr. At this time, the pipe is sufficient." This statement should be supported by video examination, engineer's statement of structural integrity, or a licensed engineer's inspection report with seal and signature. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Per discussion with County, no road plan submittal required. New culvert is proposed instead of tying into existing (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 1. C7 -01 shows detail for standard 6" curb (CG -2). Will CG -2 be used? Title sheet references waiver (item #36). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. 2. Are drainage structures (inlets) proposed for Parkview Drive, or Parrott Creek Road? If not, how will surface runoff be controlled? Use is estimated at 268 trips per day. What is anticipated effect of uncontrolled runoff on shoulders or edge of pavement? Also, see item #13, section A, above. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed; roadside ditches proposed; C3 -01, C3 -04, C7 -01 (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 3. With 23 parking spaces accessed via a travelway to NW, 22 spaces accessed via travelway to NE, and with 6 spaces at intersection of these two travelways, recommend signed intersection (2 -way stop, or stop /yield). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. As follow -up, show small stop sign proposed at intersection on C3 -02. —Also, see New (SWM) #2, above (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 4. Stream buffer impact associated with installation of 20 and 30 LF sections of RCP that tie into existing 30" CMP beneath Parkview Drive must be mitigated if not included in 0.91 Ac. total disturbance, and mitigated at 2:1 ratio [sq.ft. /Ac.]; see sheet C6 -01. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn. Site considerations, SWM redesign limiting several facilities' stream buffer impact, complete replacement of existing 30" line under Parkview Drive, and design response to SWM #3, taken together, are sufficient response to this comment. Adhere to site landscaping plant schedule and stream buffer mitigation plant schedule, Option 1(A), C6 -01. 5. Parkview Drive (268 VPD) is a poor candidate for 15mph limit. Revise limit to 20 mph, with design based on 25 mph. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed; discussed with staff — design unchanged (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 6. C3 -01 — Replace Geometric Design Standards for Residential Subdivision Streets (GS -SSR) with current VDOT standard, Subdivision Street Design Guide (SSAR), off. July 1, 2009 (VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B -1). Reference intersection and stopping sight distance for 20 mph travelway. Minimum intersection sight distance is 280'. Show intersection of Parkview Drive and Parrot Creek Road on profile, Sta. 14 +77.98. Furnish intersection sight distance profile for vertical curve, BVCS 14 +71.79. Revise design to meet minimum intersection and stopping sight distance. (Note: stopping sight distance target height = 2.0'.) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Current design with additional guardrail is sufficient —ref. C3 -01 (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 7. Proposed road cross - section should show 6 -ft shoulders, left and right. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn. —ref C7 -01, proposed road cross- section. Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 8 8. Note on road cross - section detail states that ditch centerline location exists inside and outside the existing easement. Acquire easement necessary to perform ditch maintenance within drainage easement (Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, 6.A.3.) (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Easements will be shown on plats, once plans approved (response letter /Aug 13, 2014). 9. Label the bike trail adjacent to Parkview Drive `bike trail' or `multi - purpose trail' on C2 -01. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. 10. Provide non - erodible conveyance (structural control) for Parkview Drive stormwater runoff from point of concentrated flow (in ditches) to tributary to Parrot Branch. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Ditches will convey. D. Mitigation plans (WPO201400038) 1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site development plan. (Rev. 1) Comment noted. 2. Delineate areas of stream buffer impact on sheet C6 -01 (shade or hatch); show area of impact for each area (square feet, acreage). (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Response: "We discussed this and it was not needed." Partially true. For accuracy, reference tracking, (possible) reporting, and as matter of public record: delineate areas of stream buffer impacts, C6 -01 (shade or hatch). Report square ft /Ac. —Also, road plan, 44, above. 3. Explain how plant schedule type and counts combine to satisfy Albemarle County Design Standards Manual 5.C.3.b.1. Option 1, which requires: "For every 400 square foot unit or fraction thereof, plant one (1) canopy tree measuring 1 '' /z" — 2" caliper or a large evergreen 6 feet in height, one (1) understory tree measuring 3/4" — 1 '/2" caliper, or one evergreen 4 feet in height, and one (1) small shrub 15" — 18" in height." If total (stream buffer) disturbance = 0.91 Ac., using mitigation ratio of 2:1, there are 198.2 400 -ft2 units. Plant schedule appears insufficient. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn. —As follow -up, see #2, above. Does design include stream buffer impacts from location or construction of SWM #2, 3, 4, and 5? (Downslope contours are partially within stream buffer.) (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn. —Also #2/3, above. Also, road plan #4, above. E. Final Plat For the record, the roads internal to the site, serving the homes, do not meet any road standard. They would not be adequate for a subdivision of the property, and they have not been reviewed as roads. (Rev. 1) Comment NA. Property is not intended to be subdivided (response /Aug 13, 2014). The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package with a completed application form. Engineering plan review staff are available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to discuss this review. Process: After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's Management Analyst will Engineering Review Comments Page 8 of 8 prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2 -4 weeks to obtain all the correct signatures and forms. Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded. The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees. After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county. After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre - construction conference. Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre - construction conference form, and pay the remainder of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre - construction conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre - construction conference, should everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that work may begin. County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering; htW://www.albemarle.orp-/deptforms.asp?departinent--cdengno File: WPO201400038- sheeflee cohousing- Memo - 100914 �pF A vt�r�1Q 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: Sheeflee Cohousing Plan preparer: Kevin Conner, Gay and Neel, Inc [ 1260 Radford Streen, Christiansburg, VA 24073 — kconner @gayandneel.com] Owner or rep.: Peter Lazar, Sheeflee LLC [1730 Sage Lane, Blacksburg, VA 24060 p eterlazar(a) email. coml Plan received date: 24 March 2014 Date of comments: 15 May 2014 Reviewer: John Anderson A. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan (WP0201400038) 1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site development plan. 2. Concept is problematic. Final grade and development design allow, in one instance, storm runoff to traverse 210 -ft (including 120 -ft impervious surface) while falling 21 -ft to a bio- retention facility. Ref. C3- 02, 654 -ft contour, falling north along fire lane access /walkway then running between buildings 6 and 7 to SWM #1. See also vehicular /pedestrian path diagram, inset, C2 -01. It appears there is no collection of runoff other than fall of grade to each SWM facility. Have concentrated flow erosive effects been considered during 2- or 10 -yr storms? What impact to walkways, pavement, buildings, or landscape features? Engineering cannot approve design that fails to furnish adequate storm runoff conveyance features. 3. Design features may not create a nuisance to future residents. Typically, we do not allow SWM facilities on individual lots. In this instance, the proposed SWM facilities are too close to the residences. We need separation between residences and edge of SWM facilities that is at least 20 -11. 4. Please model 24 -hr storm; evaluate 2 -, 10 -, 100 -yr storm events against bio -filter designs. The Modified Rational Method does not use a 24 -hr storm distribution. ACCD has adopted SCS method for stormwater management reviews. In reviewing report titled Final Stormwater Calculations, Project Number: 1770.3, dated April 25, 2008, revised March 7, 2014, all computations appear to rely on the Modified Rational Method, and appear to be dated April 2008. 5. MS -19 analysis is incomplete (p. 108, report). Rather than the 1% analysis point being a single point of analysis, it is a limit, with points upstream subject to analysis of project contribution to erosion or flooding of downstream natural or manmade channels. Each release point should be analyzed until it reaches an adequate channel. 6. Computations and model inputs require revision (item #2, above). Report p. 7 post - development drainage area map must match plans. Parking and structures should be identical with proposed development on plan sheets dated 2/27/14 and post - development drainage area map contours should reflect final grade, not pre - development contours. As consequence, impervious areas may change in certain BMP computations. Please revise map and computations as necessary. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 7. Include pre- post - development drainage area maps as sheets in revised plan set. Please be sure post - development drainage area reflects proposed current design (parking, structures, final grade). Show size of each drainage area (square feet, or acreage). 8. V, required treatment volume, Area 4 (p. 24 of report), is somewhat higher than listed (19.88 cy v. 19.7). V, required treatment volume, Area 5, is not included in report. Please include V, Area 5. 0-03, C3 -04: profiles of SWM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are not drawn to scale. Plan views of SWM #1, 2, 3 appear drawn to scale, but scale is unknown. Please furnish plan/profile scale drawings of each SWM biofilter. Without scale, it is difficult to correlate drawings with required flat floor area of biofilters (p. 27 /report). Silt trap retrofit to biofilter typical section, sheet C7 -02 and p. 29 /report, provides guidance, but review and construction necessitate specific design parameters be shown on plans; specifically: clarify selection of soil mix (eliminate reference to state approved soil mix or tested and approved equivalent [C7 -02]); furnish specifications for Luck bio- filter mix or tested and approved equivalent (p. 29 /report). Provide depth of loam or granular earth fill. 10. Facility SWM -1 cannot have an emergency spillway passing over unpaved earth and then a wall. Also, see item 11, below. 11. VA Stormwater Management Handbook, 3.03 -2, design criteria, Vegetated Emergency Spillway, states that the channel should be excavated into undisturbed earth or rock and the water surface, under maximum design flood discharge, should be confined by undisturbed earth or rock. Please revise vegetated emergency spillways for SWM #1, 3, 4, 5 to avoid fill slopes. Also, see item 10, above. 12. SWM #5 is narrow. Floor area is approx 165 -ft X 6 -ft. VSMH, 3.11 -3 states the minimum width for a bioretention area is usually 10 -feet, although widths as narrow as 4 feet may be used if the runoff arrives as dispersed sheet flow along the length of the facility from a properly sized vegetated strip. There appears to be a 2 -ft grass strip between paved surface and embankment of SWM #5. Support or explain width of SWM #5 relative to design objectives. 13. 3/7/14 Report (Final Stormwater calculations): we would expect to see post - development tc of 5 -6 min and channel as well as overland length for each drainage area, especially since no runoff collection is proposed. Please review post - development channel length and tc for each DA. Please revise calculations to include reasonable channel length when calculating post - development flow for SWM #5. Also, see items #2 and #12, above. 14. Retaining walls: Unless 4' high retaining walls are a design element, please revise Non - critical retaining wall section detail on sheet C7 -03. Structural computations with original seal and signature are required for walls over 5 -ft high that support necessary infrastructure (SWM # 1) or affect neighboring property. Typical sections with dimensions for all configurations, reinforcement layout (steel, geogrid, etc), and details for any pipes through a retaining wall, bridged utilities, or penetrations in geogrid must be shown on drawings. Safety railing is required for walls over 4 -ft high. All structural reinforcement (steel, geogrids, etc) must be specified; all dimensions must be specified. 15. How is runoff from developed areas conveyed to SWM bio- retention facilities? Also, see item #2, above, and item #2, section C, below. 16. Report, pp. 108 -109. Delineate project area. Furnish project area acreage on topographic map titled 1% Analysis Point Map, d. 3/6/14. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 17. Show existing septic field for 2 -story log dwelling relative to SWM #5, or nearest SWM facility. 18. Access easement around SWM -5 facility required. (3/14/14 Applicant response noted.) 19. A standard SWM agreement will be necessary for SWM facilities. (3/14/14 Applicant response noted.) B. Erosion Control Plan (WPO201400038) 1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site development plan. 2. Break silt fence for stormwater conveyance channel 5 (SCC5). 3. Silt fence is not tree protection. Eliminate notes on sheet C5 -01 that read silt fence at limits of disturbance shall serve as tree protection measure. Ref VESCH, 1992 Edit, for tree protection. C. Road plans (SDP200800074) (18 Nov 2013 engineering review comment) 1) "Please note the road plan has changed. Please submit a road plan as a separate SUB application. The Albemarle County Engineering Department distributes road plan submittals to our planning staff, and to VDOT as a courtesy. We do not distribute or coordinate review with other departments or agencies like Fire & Rescue, Parks and Recreation, ACSA, RWSA, etc. This must be coordinated by the owner or applicant. Approval documentation must be provided from all applicable departments and agencies prior to final road plan approval. Please address the following comment: a) - b) The previous submittal proposed to remove and replace the entire 30" CMP under Parkview Drive. Now, it only replaces two sections of the pipe to EW and ES. The pipe's condition under road is unknown. Please clarify. Show calcs with WPO application." 3/14/14 Applicant response (to 18 Nov 2013 Michelle Roberge comments): "Response: we have calculations on record from a previous submittal showing the two sections of pipe tying into the 30" CMP. These calculations have been provided to verify the pipe is adequate. The condition of the pipe and maintenance of the pipe is the responsibility of the parties involved with Parkview Dr. At this time, the pipe is sufficient." This statement should be supported by video examination, engineer's statement of structural integrity, or a licensed engineer's inspection report with seal and signature. Please submit a road plan as a separate SUB application. I will do a full review after I receive the SUB application. With SUB application, please address: 1. C7 -01 shows detail for standard 6" curb (CG -2). Will CG -2 be used? Title sheet references waiver (item #36). 2. Are drainage structures (inlets) proposed for Parkview Drive, or Parrott Creek Road? If not, how will surface runoff be controlled? Use is estimated at 268 trips per day. What is anticipated effect of uncontrolled runoff on shoulders or edge of pavement? Also, see item #13, section A, above. 3. With 23 parking spaces accessed via a travelway to NW, 22 spaces accessed via travelway to NE, and with 6 spaces at intersection of these two travelways, recommend signed intersection (2 -way stop, or stop /yield). 4. Stream buffer impact associated with installation of 20 and 30 LF sections of RCP that tie into existing 30" CMP beneath Parkview Drive must be mitigated if not included in 0.91 Ac. total disturbance, and mitigated at 2:1 ratio [sq.ft. /Ac.]; see sheet C6 -01. 5. Parkview Drive (268 VPD) is a poor candidate for 15mph limit. Revise limit to 20 mph, with design based on 25 mph. 6. C3 -01 — Replace Geometric Design Standards for Residential Subdivision Streets (GS -SSR) with Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 current VDOT standard, Subdivision Street Design Guide (SSAR), eff. July 1, 2009 (VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B -1). Reference intersection and stopping sight distance for 20 mph travelway. Minimum intersection sight distance is 280'. Show intersection of Parkview Drive and Parrot Creek Road on profile, Sta. 14 +77.98. Furnish intersection sight distance profile for vertical curve, BVCS 14 +71.79. Revise design to meet minimum intersection and stopping sight distance. (Note: stopping sight distance target height = 2.0'.) 7. Proposed road cross - section should show 6 -ft shoulders, left and right. 8. Note on road cross - section detail states that ditch centerline location exists inside and outside the existing easement. Acquire easement necessary to perform ditch maintenance within drainage easement (Albemarle County Design Standards Manual, 6.A.3.) 9. Label the bike trail adjacent to Parkview Drive `bike trail' or `multi - purpose trail' on C2 -01. 10. Provide non - erodible conveyance (structural control) for Parkview Drive stormwater runoff from point of concentrated flow (in ditches) to tributary to Parrot Branch. D. Mitigation plans (WPO201400038) 1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site development plan. 2. Delineate areas of stream buffer impact on sheet C6 -01 (shade or hatch); show area of impact for each area (square feet, acreage). 3. Explain how plant schedule type and counts combine to satisfy Albemarle County Design Standards Manual 5.C.3.b.1. Option 1, which requires: "For every 400 square foot unit or fraction thereof, plant one (1) canopy tree measuring 1 '' /z" — 2" caliper or a large evergreen 6 feet in height, one (1) understory tree measuring 3 /a" — 1 '/2" caliper, or one evergreen 4 feet in height, and one (1) small shrub 15" — 18" in height." If total (stream buffer) disturbance = 0.91 Ac., using mitigation ratio of 2:1, there are 198.2 400 -ft2 units. Plant schedule appears insufficient. 4. Does design include stream buffer impacts from location or construction of SWM #2, 3, 4, and 5? (Downslope contours are partially within stream buffer.) E. Final Plat For the record, the roads internal to the site, serving the homes, do not meet any road standard. They would not be adequate for a subdivision of the property, and they have not been reviewed as roads. File: WPO201400038- sheeflee cohousing- Memo - 051514 A. IIS GAY AND N EEL, INC. ENGINEERING 4 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 9 SURVEYING August 13, 2014 Ms. Ellie Ray, Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Job No. 1770.3 Dear Ms. Ray: Please find enclosed a resubmittal on the above referenced project for your review and approval. Below is an itemized list of the enclosures in this package. • Six (6) copies of the Site Development Plan dated August 11, 2014. • One (1) copy of the Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative dated August 11, 2014. We received your letter dated May 19, 2014 and have addressed your comments as follows: 1. Comment: [32.5.2(b)) This plan proposes to change or eliminate several elements that were shown on the approved rezoning application plan. Zoning has determined that the "playground"shown on the application plan must be provided or an equivalent amenity must be proposed; either include the playground or propose an equivalent amenity for Zoning review. Please also consider adding back the walkway that was shown in between the playground area and the existing pool as it provided better site circulation. The Director of Planning has determined that the minor modifications to the parking and travelway layout along the front of the site are in conformity with the application plan. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The playground area is now shown, but a list of equipment provided must also be included. See section 4.16.2.1 for requirements. Response: A note addressing this has been added to sheet C2-01. 2. Comment: [32.5.2(i)] Provide the Deed Book and Page Number for the plat/deed that established the access easement that runs with Park View Drive. Additionally, a revised private maintenance agreement must be submitted for review by the County Attorney's Office. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Revised private road maintenance agreement must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office prior to site plan approval. Response: Will be submitted with conclusion of final engineering approval. 1260 RADFORD STREET 540.381.6011 INFO@GAYANDNEEL.COM CHRISTIANSBURG, VA 24073 WWW.GAYANDNEEL.COM Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 2 of 7 Job No.1770.3 3. Comment: [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The information provided is broken down by unit type and labeled as "Max S.F", which indicates that it's the total square footage for each type of unit(sometimes more than one unit per floor and/or multiple floors). Please also provide the maximum footprint for each existing and proposed building. Response: Maximum footprint column has been added to the chart. 4. Comment:[32.5.2(n)]Label all fences and note the height. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. A fence is now proposed around the newly added dumpster pad;provide the height of this fence. To help determine if screening standards are met, include a detail showing the design of the fence. Response: See dumpster pad and screening detail on sheet C7-03. 5. Comment: [32.5.2(n) & 4.12.16(c)6] Any parking space whose length is reduced to 16' must have a minimum 2' of unobstructed overhang area. Verify that this unobstructed area exists in front of any reduced length parking space and show it on the plan. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. It appears that several of the proposed light fixtures are located within the required unobstructed overhang; move all obstructions out of these areas. Response: Light fixture bases have been relocated to provide unobstructed overhang space. 6. Comment:(32.6.2(j) & Comment]Please show utilities and associated easements on the landscape and lighting plans to verify that no conflicts exist with plantings and lighting locations. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Label all easements on the landscape and lighting sheets. Additionally, ACSA must approve any proposed landscaping or lighting within their easements. Response: Easement labels have been added to sheet C6-01. All lighting and landscaping has been moved out of the proposed easements. 7. Comment:(32.6.2(j), 32.7.9.4(b)]Existing trees may be preserved in lieu of planting new plant materials in order to satisfy the landscaping and screening requirements of section 32.7.9, subject to the agent's approval. It appears that many of the existing trees are proposed to be used toward the tree canopy requirement, and possibly the screening and street tree requirements. The landscape plan should show the trees to be preserved, the limits of clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing. The applicant shall also sign a conservation checklist approved by the agent to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction. The checklist shall conform to the specifications in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pages Ill- 393 through 111-413, and as hereafter amended. Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 3 of 7 Job No.1770.3 Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide all relevant information including tree protection line, notes, etc on the landscape plan as the E&S plan will now be removed from the plan set(see Engineering comments). The Conservation Plan checklist must also be signed and dated. Response: Conservation plan checklist will be signed once plans are done. Tree protection line and notes are on landscape plan. 8. Comment:[32.6.2(j),32.7.9.4(b)]In addition to the above, clearly delineate the trees that are to be saved as there appear to be some discrepancies between the demolition plan, the grading plan, and the landscape plan. Any trees to be saved that are within 40' of any proposed disturbance require tree protection fencing. The landscape plan and grading plans show proposed grading directly through areas of landscape that are proposed to be saved;please clarify. Rev1:Comment not fully addressed. There is a note on the E&S plan that references many of the existing trees along the frontage of the property and basically states that the trees may or may not remain on the site at the discretion of the owner and contractor during construction; this note should also be included on the landscape plan. The approved Application Plan shows many of the trees as remaining and notes supplemental planting along the street frontage as well. Revise your note about possible removal to include a statement that if any of these trees are removed, supplemental evergreen planting will be installed to help buffer views of the proposed development. Response: Done. 9. Comment: [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.6(b)] The 5% landscaped area required in 32.7.9.6(a)shall be planted with a mixture of shade trees and shrubs and shall include one (1) large or medium shade tree per ten (10) parking spaces or portion thereof, if five (5) spaces or more. This plan requires 5 parking lot trees and proposes many large or medium shade trees, but none of the trees are particularly close to the parking areas. Please either add additional parking lot trees or move some of the proposed trees to provide shade in the parking areas. Rev1: Comment addressed. However, if possible, please add one additional tree near Building 13 to help provide shade for that 19 space parking lot. Response:Tree has been added to plan. 10. Comment: [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.7(a)] Parking areas of four or more spaces should be screened from adjacent residential and rural area districts; add additional screening along the existing road frontage as well as between this parcel and TMP 56-678 or demonstrate how the current proposal adequately screens the parking. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. See comment#22 above;the note referenced is also applicable to making sure parking is properly screened. Response: Note has been added to plan to address potential need for additional screening. Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 4 of 7 Job No. 1770.3 11. Comment: [32.6.2(j) & 32.7.9.8] It appears the tree canopy requirement is being met primarily through the preservation of existing trees. See comment above regarding the conservation plan checklist and the clear delineation of what trees will remain and how they will be protected. Also, please clarify where the 200 sf canopy number came from for the Malus; the County Plant Canopy Calculations lists 129 sf. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The total canopy number provided for the "Site Landscaping Plan Schedule" does not equal the sum of the numbers provided in the schedule; revise this number in all applicable locations (for schedule, in overall total canopy calculation, & on cover sheet). Response: Numbers have been revised to match. 12. Comment: [32.6.2(k) & 4.17] No lighting cut sheets were provided; cut sheets must be provided in the plan set for each proposed fixture to verify if fixtures are full cutoff. These cut sheets should coordinate with the catalog number provided in the luminaire schedule. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. The County's definition of full cutoff is, "The term "full cutoff luminaire"means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane."Fixture B is not full cutoff; very few, if any, bollard style fixtures meet this definition. Either propose a different fixture or a different bulb/lamp that will drop the fixture below 3000 lumen. Response: Bollard lights have been removed from plan. 13. Comment: [32.6.2(k) & 4.17]Show the proposed light locations on the site plan, utility plan and landscape plan to demonstrate that there are no site conflicts. Rev1: Comment not fully addressed. As noted previously, some light locations are within the required unobstructed parking overhang. These fixtures must be moved out of the overhang area. Response: Done. 14. Comment: [Comment] Show, and provide documentation of, all off-site easements, including temporary and permanent easements for the work that appears to be proposed on TMPs 56-678,56-67, 56A3-1, 56A3-7, 56-68, and within the access easement for Park View Drive. Add the Deed Book and Page Number to any existing easements. Any new easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to approval of this site plan. Rev1: Comment still valid;all easements must be submitted for review and approval, and recorded prior to Final Site Plan approval. Response: Noted. 15. Comment: [Comment] This site plan cannot be approved until all site review committee members grant their approval. Engineering, Zoning, E911, ACSA, and Fire/rescue comments have been provided. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. VDOT comments will be provided once received. Rev1: Comment still valid. This site plan cannot be approved until all site review Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 5 of 7 Job No.1770.3 committee members grant their approval. E911 comments have been provided (street names were previously discussed via email, but they must be added to the plans). Fire/rescue has reviewed the revisions and has no objection. ARB and Inspections had no objection to the first submittal. Engineering, Zoning, ACSA and VDOT comments will be provided once received. Response: Noted. 16. Comment: 132.5.2(d)] Due to a Zoning Text Amendment approved earlier this year, this parcel no longer contains "critical slopes"; it has a much smaller area of "preserved slopes" based on the approved Overlay Map (see County GIS). Remove the "critical slopes" and show the "preserved slopes" as represented on the approved map (on the subject parcel and any adjacent parcel where work is proposed) and label them accordingly. These slopes should be shown on the site plan as well as the existing conditions sheet, and any sheet showing off-site improvements to give a better understanding of the proposed impacts to these slopes. Disturbance of preserved slopes is allowed for public utilities (if no reasonable alternative exists), but the proposed sewer connection appears to be a private line. It is unclear from the plan whether this proposed line impacts any preserved slopes, but it will either need to avoid all impacts to preserved slopes or apply for a Special Use Permit for approval of disturbance to the preserved slopes. Response:This has been changed on sheet C1-01. received comments from John Anderson, dated June 6, 2014 and have addressed is comments as follows: A. Final Site Plan (SDP200800074) 1. Comment: C1-01:Replace(or supplement)shaded areas that show 25%or greater slopes with critical slopes (managed and preserved)—see County GIS Web Map. —ref. 18-30.7 Steep Slopes overlay district. Response: Done. 2. Comment: Identify location and size of existing water and sewer facilities, especially existing septic fields (Ch. 18§32.5.2.j.) Response: Existing locations unknown other than what is currently shown on plan as discussed. 3. Comment: Show the location of proposed utilities and utility easements, including telephone, electric, cable, and gas. Response:A plat will be provided upon final engineering approval. 4. Comment: Project proposes to establish a central sewerage system. Please reference AC Ch. 16, §16-100 — 16-105 for requirements that apply to proposed pump station and sanitary lines deemed private. See also letter from Alexander Morrison, ACSA, to John Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 6 of 7 Job No.1770.3 Neel, Gay and Neel, dated May 6, 2014. Response: Noted. 5. Comment:[Sec. 16-102 Notice of proposal to establish system or supply. Each person who proposes to establish or extend a central sewerage system or a central water supply shall notify the board of supervisors of the proposal at least sixty(60) days prior to commencing construction thereof. The notice shall be filed with the clerk of the board of supervisors. In addition to the foregoing information, the notice shall include the following: 1.The location of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply; 2.The number of connections proposed to be served by the central sewerage system or central water supply; 3.A statement describing the type of the proposed central sewerage system or central water supply and explaining the reasons the system or supply is needed; and 4.Three(3)copies of the preliminary plans for the central sewerage system or central water supply.] Response: We will provide the letter as directed. 6. Comment: Travelways within the development are not constructed to the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation, or Albemarle County design standards for private streets[ref 18-32.7.2.2.]. These homes will not have adequate infrastructure for later subdivision[ref Code section 14-232, and Code Chapter 14, Article IV, Division 2J. While this may be approvable by the agent under the zoning regulations as a site in common between all residents, it is not recommended. The intent of the referenced code sections is to provide safe and convenient access and this will be creating a set of dwellings that are substandard in this regard. Response: Noted. Property not intended to be subdivided. VD-51_ We received comments from Troy Austin,VDOT dated May 22, 2014 and have addressed those comments as follows: 1. Comment: The proposed entrance needs to be installed in accordance with the detail found in Appendix F of the Road Design Manual for a Private Subdivision Road Entrance. The radius of the entrance needs to be a minimum of 25'. The western radius is labeled as 25'. I did not see a label for the radius length on the eastern side of the entrance.Also, per the referenced detail, the throat width of the entrance should be a minimum of 24'. The plan view of the entrance scales to approximately 20'in width. Response: Entrance radii have been widened to 25 feet and the entrance throat width to 24 feet. Sheeflee Cohousing Site Development Plan Page 7 of 7 Job No. 1770.3 2. Comment: Sheet C3-01 has a detail for GS-SSR shown. The GS-SSR is not applicable to new projects. The GS-SSAR (Appendix B(1)) would apply to new streets. Since Parkview Drive is a private street, the County will need to determine which standard will be allowed. Response: Noted; reference to GS-SSR has been removed. Thank you for your time in reviewing this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Gay and Neel Inc. -112 Kevin D. Conner, L.A. Project Manager Enclosures cc: Mr. Peter Lazar KDC/scw Aum, -=moi i7rtcrN�''�, 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: Sheeflee Co-Housing Plan preparer: Gay and Neel,Inc[540-381-6011] Owner or rep.: Crozet Co-Housing,LLC Plan received date: 29 Oct 2013 Date of comments: 18 Nov 2013 Reviewer: Michelle Roberge Engineering has completed the review of application SDP200800074. A. Site Development Plan(SDP200800074) 1) The limits of travelway from walkways are not clear. Please label travelways and walkways on plans. 2) Please note the road plan has changed.Please submit a road plan as a separate SUB application. The Albemarle County Engineering Department distributes road plan submittals to our planning staff,and to VDOT as a courtesy. We do not distribute or coordinate review with other departments or agencies like Fire&Rescue,Parks and Recreation,ACSA,RWSA,etc. This must be coordinated by the owner or applicant. Approval documentation must be provided from all applicable departments and agencies prior to final road plan approval.Please address the following comment: a) The road beyond station 16+96.03 goes from 4.78%to about 10%.What is the sight distance?Show vertical crest curve for this area in profile.Also,please note all recorded easements plats already recorded may need to be revised due to changes with this proposal.Please address. b) The previous submittal proposed to remove and replace the entire 30"CMP under Parkview Drive.Now,it only replaces two sections of the pipe to EW and ES.The pipe's condition under road is unknown. Please clarify. Show calcs with WPO application. 3) Please provide copies of federal and state permits for stream disturbance(Army Corps,VEDQ, etc). 4) It appears the traffic circulation has changed since the previous submittal from July 31,2008. This proposal should incorporate the previous layout with the loop for better circulation. Here are some additional concerns. a) The road to NW parking lot now has horizontal curvatures with angular parking. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 These parking spaces should be removed and added to lot located NW of site.The angular parking will be difficult to maneuver into from the SB direction. b) I recommend changing gravelpave2 limits as shown in attached image to clarify this area from adjacent travelway. 5) Removable-bollards are shown in front of travelways to be used for emergency.I will defer to fire rescue if the bollards are ok or if they should be removed. 6) Show an outer radius for sharp curve north of site. 7) Label the pad between Bldg 9 and Bldg 10. 8) It appears the grading limits and LOD are beyond project property line.Provide a letter or any document from adjacent property owners stating permission of construction.For example,the TMP 56-67B will be graded for SWM-5 facility.Also,provide easements for construction of utilities offsite. 9) A WPO application shall be submitted to review SWM,E&S and mitigation plan.An approved WPO plan is required prior to the site plan approval.Here are some WPO comments.Please note I will do full review after I receive the WPO application.Please address the following with the WPO application: a) Address MS-19 on WPO. b) Please note SWM-5 is outside property line.Access easement around facility will be required. c) A standard SWM agreement will be necessary for SWM facilities. d) Provide an additional mitigation due to grading within the WPO buffer. e) Remove proposed ditch within floodplain. Sincerely, -/ • otI. I Michelle Roberge I� .. m n m8f➢DAr.., O - � Fx➢ip�p=��jj n �-t # OD N m nE��"2ZS :xsr µ', m� 'a m .... ; zsy' S1 z1. "1sP�r O'CWP \ Ilk pmmvl �mjN �zN Dti£ 2 IVm�83t.de �yij$ a{�f5 4 W W N N C m C u, Cr Z rz�TTrm£F yY §FA -I WNm r,Nm .1-20"107. �f� N NN► + m O m n� nm Z(7m�ZG'iz O 1 its ni g%a ti m m A� *O= 9 CC o m I.i _ N $ N N y 0 2N= $ a G ---------------- "a7-01--""="t 4101-W u -�� MENT D.B.102 V.* EN.ISTING 50 EASE 7 ....4:44., ,N 9;WS N i to 0 r. ... ,W1'gt % �• Agit, �y� iSy,17',�{ i mgr 2� y moo'°, : ;1/i TlfS • . 0 x_r/ ^° ', 't s _ ,i7:y.., r aP. _ e ": 7 11,;`4. ..,,>,2,,,,.._.P,2--6's''91,, at-444 4 v I) $ L ' Y '''-'741 $ s- 4al - fi < - s'` , t V s 4. 5 r-', 1 A.-1 '16 o a. "'ta 40* \... '1. '�— &nano i$ t- '1l 1"� 41 & !.,p Ao, '- a Ir 0 m. !0 1 a jr 1Zn. t$ h `� twwq'S it i1c I �6 y r v" 0 t,./ ,' X,1.1.0 "_ ;' ,f ` 5j, +�\�\ . e fes . .; $t< �: '4° ' 4( eil LP...'I' i t I :::-,.e ....,,,_ w P Fe�I i o i t1 n x n t j� W t �' 1 l'7+- P I t .ti i s, w /7/ z j 1' `,..1.'1 "w.. / e7b". ,� ' R,, » ' „r‘\,,,/ , moi✓ IIP k Y♦ �p II 1 R I I - qq g .1t'�♦ 6.tl . ,' i, D_' *k,.. Z .� II t t I �RS 'Ryagaa S,aV�eq '`I`'��.""" €:� i /°y, , \ ,, , �' - �fA. °tea , 'e;. 7 .j... "�ix / > �N dY ,..•� yax +� , ll t: ., kyr \\ � $ I -` a�YN / ,�voocOs s %O °a t1 • �' el t dill' ' ' / • m' a-♦Aa a / / ^ I I' �I i se % \ \ -fl' • t \ 1 \' �g � / y o Of • a. \ / T al 0 �m 07 mx ial:\ 1,1 a$ait \�gN \" ,` \\ mLNiF"w . /1 V F •5y� T1/,' F till— o - x f g cwly 20 GAY AND NEEL,INC. $ 1*I� ±v _ ♦♦'may o �Yi ii,1 , =mama*wow. N o z SHEEFLEECOHOUSING &g tzsoBamorasue"1 o �" 2= SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN gg $$ A _ -E.e'€ :::::;:,10:7;7724"3 �m I 7ad a•: t.1 v ,c f € 1 it D i to YlLS� Si . ©'T°?1 Y. MBEMARLE COlk1N,VIRGINIA 1 V