The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWPO201800030 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2019-05-13From: Emily Cox Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 10:03 AM To: Andrew Allison Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WPO201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. Andrew - I see how you are meeting 9VAC25-870-66 B.1.a and C.1..... for channel and flood protection, however, you must show your limits of analysis for each. This is 9VAC 870-66 B. 4 and VAC870-66-C 3. 1 do not see where you have shown how your point of analysis meets either of these limits. Thanks, "Please note my email is now ecox2@albemarle.org** Emily Cox, PE Civil Engineer II (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3565 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesivlle, VA 22902 www.albemarle.orE From: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 8:52 AM To: Emily Cox <ecox2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WPO201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. Good Morning Emily, We have analyzed this development with one analysis point above Berkmar pond and meeting channel protection/flood protection requirements at that point. On Sheet C5.0 (bottom of the narrative) some language has been provided covering Flood protection with values provided on Sheet C5.1 (to the left of the ditch calculation/detail —10 year storm event). Please let me know if this provides you with the information you are looking for. I appreciate you jumping in to assist John with this project! I am happy to submit paper copies or any additional information you need to make your review easier. Don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you, Andrew Allison Project Engineer 111 TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Office: 434.327.1683 1 Fax 434.295.8317 Mobile: 704.941.4097 1 Andrew.Allison(cbtimmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files greater than 20MB click here. From: Emily Cox <ecox2@albemarle.org> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 2:49 PM To: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Subject: FW: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. Andrew - John's workload is really high right now so I am stepping in to finish this review. I see where you have added the 2-yr velocity on sheet C5.1. That is acceptable. I have a question regarding the outfall narrative on page 9 of the booklet and sheet C5 of the plans. I just want to make sure I understand everything correctly. So, you have one point of analysis, above the berkmar pond? And you are addressing all channel protection requirements based off of man-made systems until that point? (showing 2-yr 24 hr stom doesn't cause erosion?) You seem to be ok there now. What about flood protection? How are your limits of analysis met for flood proection? Sorry if you have that in there somewhere, it is hard just jumping in.... Thanks! "Please note my email is now ecox2@albemarle.org** Emily Cox, PE Civil Engineer II (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3565 Syr'Al NL 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesivlle, VA 22902 www.albemarle.org From: John Anderson Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 10:41 AM To: Emily Cox <ecox2@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. Thanks Emily From: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:45 PM To: John Anderson <ianderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. John, I have attached our updated plan sheets and calc book. Would it be possible to review this items ahead of a formal resubmission? I would like to make sure I have adequately addressed your remaining VSMP comments. I have included the calculation booklet as well. I added a "Stormwater Outfall Narrative" (see page 9) to hopefully clarify and provide you with evidence that the existing conveyance systems we are out -falling to provide enough capacity to handle flows from System 01 and System 02. Happy to discuss any questions you have or listen to suggestions to make the plan more clear for your review. Thank you as always, Andrew Allison Project Engineer 111 TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Office: 434.327.1683 Fax 434.295.8317 Mobile:704.941.4097 Andrew.AllisonCcDtimmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files greater than 20MB click here. From: John Anderson <ianderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:55 AM To: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. This sounds fine, Andrew. Please submit culvert design calculations (VDOT table format) and receiving channel /ditch capacity calculations with next submittal, for review /approval. I appreciate your note, and am glad Timmons had a chance to examine design alternatives. Thank you best, J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069 From: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 5:27 PM To: John Anderson <ianderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. John, After some additional review and brainstorming we have changed our approach a little. I have verified that the existing 15" RCP on the northern side of the site to which the 60" SWM Facility outfalls is adequate. However, we have proposed to replace the existing 15" RCP on the south side of the site. Installing a 24" RCP pipe will provide enough adequacy to handle the 84" SWM Facility along with the bio facility area. There is a stormwater maintenance easement located around the existing 15" RCP that would be utilized to upsize the pipe. I have tried to mark up the associated information for you to make things a little clearer. Please let me know if you find our approach acceptable. I am happy to meet with you once more to discuss our proposed solution, etc. Have a great weekend! Andrew Allison Project Engineer 111 TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Office: 434.327.1683 Fax 434.295.8317 Mobile: 704.941.4097 Andrew.Allison(a)timmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files greater than 20MB click here. From: John Anderson <ianderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 5:34 PM To: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. Andrew, Yes, this sounds acceptable provided splitting analysis points in two reflects physical separation of two actual distinct discharge points; that is, if there are two discharge points into a 15" RCP pipe, splitting analysis is fine. If this is not the case, a first check for analysis should be: is analysis a fair and faithful representation of system design, of an existing system, and/or of reasonably anticipated (hydraulic) behavior. I believe splitting the analysis points in two may more nearly model actual circumstance if proposed development is designed to discharge into the 15" RCP on the south side of the site at two distinct points, but would like for Timmons to confirm this. Thanks for writing. -best, J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069 From: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:57 PM To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. Good Afternoon John, I wanted to touch base in regards to comment #7. After further investigation and our best engineering judgement of the existing detention system and bioretention facility, the 15" RCP pipe on the south side of the site doesn't appear to be adequate based on the current design. The current flows in this pipe along with the additional flow from the 84" detention system would create a "pressure flow" condition. To hopefully make things more clear and satisfy this comment, I would like to split the analysis points into 2 (see attached). My reevaluation would then look at energy balance/flood protection at each point to ensure code is being met. I will make any appropriate revisions to the CMP system based on the splitting of the analysis points. I apologize for coming into this project late and not being fully aware of what previous discussions may have taken place. Please let me know if you think this is an acceptable way to proceed. Thank you! Andrew Allison Project Engineer 111 TIMMONS GROUP I www.timmons.com 608 Preston Ave, Suite 200 1 Charlottesville, VA 22903 Office: 434.327.1683 1 Fax 434.295.8317 Mobile: 704.941.4097 1 And rew.Allison(a)timmons.com Your Vision Achieved Through Ours To send me files greater than 20MB click here. From: Craig Kotarski <Craig.Kota rski@timmons.com> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:02 AM To: Andrew Allison <Andrew.Allison@timmons.com> Subject: FW: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. From: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 4:14 PM To: Clint Shifflett <cshifflett@dominioneng.com> Cc: Craig Kotarski <Craig.Kota rski@timmons.com>; dlensen@wwassociates.net; hwhite@wwassociates.net; Tim Padalino <tpadalino@albemarle.orR> Subject: Planning Application Review for WP0201800030 CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE SPCA - VSMP - DIGITAL. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number = WP0201800030 Reviewer = John Anderson Review Status = Denied Completed Date = 12/26/2018 This email was sent from County View Production. Clint, Attached also in CV. I realize you are stepping in for John Wilson. Please note the SWPPP cannot be approved. Until SWPPP is approved, the VSMP /WPO plan cannot be approved, project cannot be registered to receive DEQ CGP coverage, and Site Plan Amendment cannot be approved. We understand CASPCA desire to list GC personnel in the SWPPP, but we cannot deviate from state requirements. Albemarle cannot upload data to DEQ's SWCGP database, or request DEQ issue a VAR10 VPDES permit to this project unless the SWPPP is complete (requisite information). Albemarle must review and confirm the SWPPP is complete. Thanks for your help, because we are at something of a standstill. Apart from the SWPPP, one SWM Plan comment remains; item #7. The ESC Plan is approved. The SWPPP is disapproved. The VSMP Plan is denied. .PDF preview of SWPPP is welcome. .PDF preview of C5.1, revised to show V2_,, Ditch to Kegler's Pond /Post, is welcome. X'¢q+l, GRASS CHANNEL, ROUGHNESS = 0.05� SLOPE :2.5°!n Qi = 11,80 Cfs i-YR V O ITY = 3.28 FPS R I EPTH = 1.S2' DITCH TO KEGLERS POND POST 9VAC25-870-66.B.1 8 Channel protection. Concentrated stormwaler flow shaft be released into a stormwater conveyance system and shall meek the crrtena in so drvisian 1, 2, or 3 of this subsection, where applicable, from Ine point of dFschaf5e to a point to the limits of anAIysis in sutrdMM an d of this subsection. 1. Mgnmade stormwaler conveyance sy,lems. When stonmvater from a development is di .charged to a manmade Morrnwater conveyance system, falrcr mng the rand-dwurbpng activity, either: a. The rnilnrnade Storrmv9Eer conveyance system shall convey the pbstdevelopment peak flow(Fe'rom the two- year 24-hour slerm evert wilhout causing erosion of the systern Detention of storrn%vatr do• rearn improvements may be Incorporated into the approved land•drsturbing activity to meet this criterion, at the diKrelion of the VSMP aulhority: or b. The peak discharge requirements for concentrated storrnwater Pow to natural slamwater conveyance systems in subdivision 3 of this subsection shall be met Thanks for your help and patience. -best J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069