HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201800044 Approval - County 2018-12-13COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Project title:
Royal Fern
Project file number:
WP0201800044
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering [Justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.:
Gambit LLC & Snow Paws LLC et als
P.O. Box 6846, Charlottesville, VA 22906
Plan received date:
7 Jun 2018
(Rev. 1)
4 Sep 2018
(Rev. 2)
7 Nov 2018
Date of comments:
19 Jul 2018
(Rev. 1)
10 Oct 2018
(Rev. 2)
13 Dec 2018 — Conditionallygpproved*
Reviewers:
John Anderson
* ref. SWPPP comment, 1 comment remains (Approved pending receipt of revised VPDES Registration Statement)
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 for reason listed, below*
(SWPPP). The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
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 SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. SWPPP anticipated with first revision submittal. (Rev. 1) As follow-M: Ensure SWPPP Sec. 1 Registration
Statement Area to be Disturbed (12.40 Ac.) and VSMP Plan LOD (C7, ESC Legend, 4.00 Ac.) match.
(Rev. 2) Not Addressed. C7, ESC Legend, and C5, Project Description list 4.0 Ac. area of disturbance.
Registration Statement and plan area of disturbance must match. Further, Registration statement Name of
Construction Activity is blank. Provide project name at VPDES Permit Registration Statement, item #3.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) — (Rev. 1) Addressed
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Anticipate PPP (Sec. 6, County SWPPP template) and SWPPP Exhibit with first revision submittal.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.
This plan is approved.
Proposed design, VSMP and Road Plan, must be consistent with approved final site plan for Brookdale, a
development with shared property line immediately west, FSP approved 2/7/18 (SDP201700069).
Brookdale documents are available on County View. There are two primary issues: proposed release point
for (Royal Fern) proposed biofilter is inconsistent with now -approved Brookdale development, with both
approved grading and SWM design. Royal Fern discharge of post -development runoff to Brookdale parcel
must be shown to work with approved Brookdale VSMP (WP0201700081). Second, VDOT /Albemarle
note that the proposed entrance to Royal Fern on Mountainwood Road overlaps an approved entrance to
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
Brookdale. VDOT and county subdivision and private road standards would not permit this geometry.
Please consult with VDOT on possible approvable locations for subdivision entrance on Mountainwood
Road. With entrance relocation, site land cover values and BMP options (type, size, location) may change.
(Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant Response: `We have altered the site design to coordinate with the
Brookdale project on the adjacent site. This primarily involved removing the connection to Mountainwood
road.
• The proposed release point of the biofilter is within an existing swale within our property. The
approved Brookdale VSMP plan accounted for this swale, and the runoff it collects, in the sizing
of their SWM detention basin. Since our biofilter outlet meets the energy balance equation at this
point, this compliance dictates that runoff from our site will not cause additional impact to this
neighboring site. We have contacted the design engineers to negotiate a grading easement so that
we can continue the swale into the basin and prevent any long-term erosion.
• After discussion with VDOT staff we have elected to remove the connection to Mountainwood
Road and include a turnaround in the private travelway. SWM calculations have been updated to
reflect this change.'
(Rev. 2) Addressed via design. Applicant response: `We have designed the biofilter to outlet into
a level spreader. The level spreader is designed per Green Book Specs [VESCH Std. & Spec.
3.21 ]. Since the biofilter has a 10-yr runoff rate of 3.23 cfs, the spreader will have a length of 10'
[ref. Table 3.21-A] Although this runoff rate qualifies for a grassed spreader lip, we have
specified a timber lip to ensure best long-term performance. The grade after the spreader to the
property line is 4.5%.' Engineering accepts this design.
As follow-up: (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn; ref, reviewer email, 10/12/2018 10:16 AM (All lots
have frontage on existing roads /streets; access will be designed as an alley.)
• Private travelway is a public road by default, unless approved as a private street. In either case,
access to subdivision requires a Road Plan. (Private street request procedures listed at 14-232.)
• Road /street must meet VDOT standards. This road /street likely qualifies for AASHTO 2001
Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low -Volume Local Roads. Ref. excerpt, Exhibit 3, U.S.
Customary (unit of measure), when designing public road /private street (25mph design speed).
90' CL radius does not meet minimum CL radius. Engineering anticipates change in impervious
area, slight change in calculated runoff values, and VSMP Plan revision. (Attached.)
• Revise cul-de-sac: Design does not meet (typical) Albemarle Fire -Rescue min. required cul-de-sac
radius (48'). Recommend Applicant coordinate cul-de-sac Min. radius with Fire -Rescue prior to
Road Plan submittal, and to coordinate with ACPS Director of Transportation to confirm there is
no prospect (zero potential) of future public school transportation (K-12) bus routes that use Royal
Fern internal road/s. Without written confirmation from both ACPS and Fire -Rescue, provide
Min. cul-de-sac radius 45' on Road Plan (when submitted) and revised VSMP resubmittal. Ref.
VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(l), B-4, Elements of Typical Section, F. (tex4 image;
removed with Rev. 2)
• When designing shoulder and ditch section, please ref. VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix
B(1), B-3, Roadway Geometric Design Criteria, Table 2, for Min. ditch width. This section
applies to all lots, even those with relatively flat grade. Ditches convey runoff, and limit ponding.
Driveway entrance pipes are required whenever there is a design vertical change in grade
(elevation) as measured at either side of a driveway, however slight.
(Rev. 2) Addressed (comment follows): If revised VSMP design proposes Forest /Open Space Easement,
and multiple areas combine to provide a total post -development land cover forest /open space acreage, label
each section of Forest /Open Space Easement. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: 0.40 Ac.
portion of proposed 1.18 Ac. overall Forest /Open Space easement, which fronts Country Green Road, is
not entirely eligible. (Other sections are also ineligible.) DEQ guidance affects eligibility. Practical
concern over future disturbance and lessons learned through experience allowing Forest /Open Space on
private lots (Chesterfield Landing) lend support to protective barrier requirement as condition of acceptance
of even a portion of proposed 0.40 Ac. section as Forest /Open Space easement. Design proposes
permanent easements that prohibit all but occasional use or maintenance of sections of seven lots (Lots 2-
8). Initial SWM Forest /Open Space easement will not be between Albemarle and eventual owners of lots
(who will likely be unaware, barring close examination of final plat, that limits apply to the property), but
instead, between Albemarle and developer. In the VaRRM .xls, if —0.1 Open Space C is included with 0.78
Ac. portions of SWM Forest /Open Space easement west of the proposed road /street (which are likewise
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
partially ineligible), and these values entered in the .xls, the phosphorus load reduction required for the
development rises from 1.58 to 1.70 lb./vr. At current market rates of $14k /lb., this is approximately
$1,680, or $240/Lot.
• For all portions of proposed SWM Forest /Open Space Easement, per DEQ Guidance Memo No.
16-2001, Updated Virginia Runoff Reduction Method Compliance Spreadsheets — Version 3.0, d.
May 2, 2016 (link: https://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/documents/GM16-
2001%20Virginia%20Runoff%20Reduction%20Method_V3.pdf), p. 12, Table 1, Land Cover Guidance
for VaRRM Compliance Spreadsheets, Forest & Open Space:
o Compare Site Layout with Grading and Utility Plan. Any area disturbed or not protected
during construction of individual lots or common areas, east or west of road/street, is
ineligible for Forest /Open Space classification or inclusion in VaRRM .xls. Remove all
disturbed or unprotected areas from proposed Forest /Open Space (.xls) Land Cover
Acreage. Revise plans. (Rev. 2) Applicant response: `In our meeting on 10-11-18, we
discussed the viability of placing this easement within a lot. In general, we will avoid
this strategy, however, we concluded that for this scenario the SWM Forest/Open Space
easement was acceptable because the Zoning canopy requirement further solidifies the
preservation for the wooded area and adds another layer of enforcement to maintain this
condition ... In this meeting we also concluded that disturbed areas can be dedicated in a
SWM Forest/Open space easement provided it is protected and maintained per DEQ
guidelines. This applies to the area between the biofilter outlet (15" culvert) and the
sanitary sewer —this will be (minimally) disturbed ruing construction, but will be placed
in the easement and shall not be bush -hogged more than 4x per year.' Engineering
accepts this response.
o For eligible areas, coordinate effect of proposed SWM Forest /Open Space easement with
current OHU easement holder. Confirm SWM Forest /Open Space easement may
overlap Ex. OHU easement. Examine legal aspect, such that easement relied upon for
stormwater management compliance is not now (nor will be) compromised by occupying
space under existing easement. Written declaration by Ex. OHU easement holder `No
conflict exists' between proposed Forest /Open Space and Ex. OHU easement is requisite
to acceptance of any portion of proposed Forest /Open Space easement proposed to be
located on undisturbed, protected portions of the subdivision, and co -located on areas
shown to be under Ex. OHU (or other) easement. (Rev. 2) Applicant response: `SWM
Forest /Open Space Esmt & OHU easement conflicts: from our inquiries we determined
that Dominion Power permits tree growth of up to 10' height under the power lines and
trims their easements on a 3-4 year cycle. Dominion Power follows ANSI A300
standards in their vegetation management practices, which specifically seeks to promote
vegetation maintenance similar to natural forest conditions. There is no conflict with the
easements and the dominion maintenance schedule is less frequent than is allowed by the
VRRM requirements. Thus, this SWM Forest/Open Space easement is appropriate even
for the areas of easement overlap.' Engineering accepts this response.
o For eligible areas proposed to be located on Lots 2-8: provide protective permanent
barrier, a fence not shrubs (12" dia./24-30" deep concrete base/ea. post; pressure treated
or galvanized material, 6' ht., with gated access to Forest /Open Space portion of lot).
Estimate —500-ft fence required, Lots 2-8. (Compare with $1,680. Can fence be installed
for $3.36 /ft.? Will fence enhance property values?) (Rev. 2) Applicant response: `We
will not provide permanent fencing for this area because of the additional zoning
enforcement that is included with this forest area.' Engineering accepts this response.
o Revise VaRRM .xls, as needed. (Rev. 2) Applicant response: `VRRM total areas have
not changed.' Engineering accepts this response.
Ai3,3ro;,ed�� �e1 image remove with Rev.l review:
Royal Fern: Proposed Entrance BMP Location, WP0201800044 (PNe �* shoot Q'2; removed w/ Rev. 2)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
DEQ Cjuidanee Memo No. 16 2001, p. 12, Table 1, Land Cover- Guidanee faf VaRRM Gemplianee Spreadsheets,
Forest p. Open c. gg. : (removed with Rev. 2)
3. Lots 8, 9, 10 appear to propose portions of building sites on critical slopes; ref. 18-4.2. l (a). Relocate
building sites off managed steep slopes, as underlying district includes critical slope restrictions. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn —review error.
4. C2, C4: Label steep slopes. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Provide VSWMH Appendix C (periodic) BMP facility inspection checklist/s on the plans. Engineering has
.PDF files of each Appendix C checklist, and will provide to Applicant on request. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Provide construction steps copied directly from VA Stomrwater Design Specifications, for each proposed
BMP facility. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. C3: Title this sheet Site Layout. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
S. C3, BMP outfall: Provide drainage easement that extends to a natural receiving channel. It is insufficient to
locate proposed outfall coincident with a property line without release to a natural or manmade channel.
(14-431.A.1.) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `We have contacted the design engineer of the
adjacent site plan to provide a grading easement to extend the existing swale into their proposed SWM
basin. The proposed swale would be located within the SWM easement on that property.' Note: Ditch 9
(Sheet C3) would require adjacent property owner to be listed on ESC Plan bond, so ditch 9 soil
stabilization matting will not be included in ESC bond estimate for Royal Fern. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Applicant response: `No easement or grading is being pursued on the adjacent parcel. Comment is no
longer relevant.'
9. C3: Extend SWM Access easement to a public right-of-way, over and across proposed private streets.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. C3: Relocate BMP Access Easement so not coincident with ditch 9. BMP access must provide vehicular
access; ditch and access may not occupy the same corridor space. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
11. Since property to the west has right to develop under FSP SDP201700069, recommend consider working
with adjacent property owner to route Royal Fern runoff to a proposed manmade drainage system; i.e., MH.
(Rev. 1) Addressed —refer to previous comments on this point.
12. Design must meet VAC25-840-40.19.(a.-n.) (MS-19) (Rev. 1) Addressed/acknowledged.
13. Any Forest/Open Space Easement relied upon for water quality compliance must be recorded with final
subdivision plat as condition of VSMP Approval. (Rev. 1) Addressed/Noted. Also, comment #2, above.
14. C5, Stormwater Management Note 1. is, for the moment, inaccurate. Revise design. Also, item #1, above.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. Compare C5, SWM Note. 4 (1.23 Ac.) with C3 proposed Forest /Open Space Easement Area (1.25 Ac.);
revise for consistency. This and many comments may be irrelevant with redesign. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
As follow-up: Revised to 1.18 Ac., but see comment #2, above.
16. Ensure BMP Notes with salient details (C5) appear as labels on BMP profile; 7" pond depth, for example.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. C5 Biofilter Installation Notes: for any proposed BMP, copy installation /construction steps from the
appropriate VA Stormwater Design Specification. List specification installation steps on the plans. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
18. Strongly recommend VSMP plan show future developed condition of adjacent TMP # 76-46C1, since this
development is approved (Brookdale). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. C2, Provide TMPs for adjacent parcels. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan
is approved.
C6
1. Label CE as PCE —Revise Legend to include Paved Construction Entrance. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Label Country Green Road. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
3. Show Ex. treeline. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Note: Areas presently in forest (Ex. trees) proposed to be
removed with SWM facility, road, or other development feature construction are ineligible to be considered
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
SWM Forest /Open Space easement. Also, comment #2, above. (Rev. 2) Also, see comment response #2
above.
( ; revmoved with Rev. 2)
4. Label LOD Area =4.30 Ac. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Ensure SWPPP Sec. 1 Registration
Statement Area to be Disturbed (12.40 Ac.) and VSMP Plan LOD (C7, ESC Legend, 4.00 Ac.) match.
5. Provide additional contour labels. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Add SAF to legend (dash -square -dash). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
7. Add TP to legend /show tree protection, as/where needed. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
CT (Less relevant, sinee aes�n nw,/.. ii nee;
8. Provide floor dimensions, proposed biofilter. (Rev. 1) Not addressed (unless review error). Please label
biofilter L X W on sheet C4. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
9. Provide additional contour labels to aid review. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Lots 6, 7, 8, 10 require driveway entrance pipes. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Lots 6, 7,
8, 10 will have driveways that are graded to have a slight swale to direct runoff. These driveways do not
pass over a defined ditch, so culverts are not needed.' Please ref. SWM Plan comment #1, follow-up, 4'
bullet. Driveway design shown on Road Plan and ditch design shown on VSMP Plan is compared with
VDOT Road Design manual, Table 2, shoulder and ditch section. Elimination of ditches does not meet
VDOT standards. A defined ditch is shown on C4; a ditch is required by VDOT Road Design Manual.
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Applicant response: `Driveway has been super -elevated from Sta. 15+00 — 16+50 to
remove need for driveway culverts.'
11. Label ditches to receive EC-2 stabilization blanket. Provide ref. to C9 detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
12. Provide label and dimensions for timber /gravel level spreaders. Provide typ. detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. C8: Check sediment trap 2 table values: A, B, C, H values may require revision. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
C9:
14. Dimension BMP outfall riprap (L X W X D). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. Storm Sewer Profile B 1-132: 6" roof drain in —show in plan view; or confirm shown on site plan. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. As follow-up: Compare plan labels to profile labels; profile labels transposed. Please revise.
(Rev. 2) Addressed.
16. Storm Sewer Profile C1-C2: Label pipe slope. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. Storm Sewer Profile Cl-C2: Revise rim elevation 48" conc. riser to 460'. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Four (4) print copies of the VSMP may be submitted for approval when single remaining SWPPP comment is
addressed. .PDF preview is welcome.
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
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.
Stormwater Management Facility, SWM Facility Access, Forest /Open -Space Easements must be recorded with the
final subdivision plat. Subdivision plat will not be approved unless it shows all easements required to approve the
VSMP. This means a Grading Permit may be issued prior to recordation of VSMP-related easements, with final
plat.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ database
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
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;
hllp://www.albemarle.orWdeptforms.asp?dej2artment--cdengWo
File: WPO201800044 Royal Fern121318 rev2.doc