HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201900004 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2019-10-02COUNTY 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: Brookhill Block 8A Senior Living Facility
Project file number: WP0201900004
Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering — Ryan Yauger [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.: CA Senior Living Holdings, LLC
Matt Booma[mbooma@ca-ventures.com]
Plan received date: 01 Feb 2019
Rev. 1 received: 10 May 2019
Rev. 2 received: 01 Jul 2019
Rev. 3 received:
05 Sept 2019
Date of comments:
28 Feb 2019
Rev. 1 comments:
13 June 2019
Rev. 2 comments:
31 July 2019
Rev. 3: comments:
02 Oct 2019
Reviewers:
Emily Cox
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 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 was not provided with this submission. Provide two copies of a SWPPP. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
2. Ensure that the SWPPP contains a signed registration statement and a signed certification (section
1 and 9 of this template) -
http://www.albemarle. org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community_ Development/for
ms/Engineering and _WPO_Forms/Stormwater_Pollution _Prevention _ Plan_ SWPPP_template.pdf
Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Partially addressed.Certification (section 9) was
signed, however 2019 registration is necessary. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/StormwaterM
anagement/CGPo20ADA/CGPo20Registrationo20Statemento202019 FI
NAL 201904.pdf?ver=2019-05-01-163955-110
3. C-107 shows areas of disturbance are clarified for this project and other projects within Brookhill
based on approved plans, however, the SWPPP needs sheet showing disturbed areas and each
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
operator's responsible area. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: The exhibit should show
wb- his operator is responsible for. Rev. 3: Comment addressed for this SWPPP.
However, Brookhill should have an updated overall exhibit for all of the projects showing
the total areas associated with each VAR permit # (as discussed in our meeting on 9/19/19).
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
PPP was not provided with this submission. Provide two copies of a PPP and ensure it contains
everything as outlined in County Code section 17-404. Rev. 1: Comment not addressed. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) & Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (E&S)
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.
C-100
Comment 1: This should have an approved date.
Response 1: The approval and revision date have been added. See Sheet C-100.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 2: This is WP0201900004.
Response 2: The plan number has been revised. See Sheet C-100.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-106
Comment 1: LOD going offsite?
Response 1: The LOD goes offsite for grading in this area. See proposed 20' temporary grading
easement on Sheet C-201.
Rev. 1: Will this easement be recorded? Do you have permission from the off -site owner?
Provide written documentation of permission to work off site.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed.
Rev. 3: Comment not addressed.
Comment 2: This is not existing. It is the proposed greenway. Please revise on all applicable sheets.
Response 2: The label has been revised as requested.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-200
Comment 1: Show DB & PG for all recorded easements (not all are pointed out)
Response 1: DB and PG for all recorded easements have been provided. See Sheet C-200.
Rev. 1: There are Ex. SWM and Ex. Storm easements shown without DB & PG. Are they not
recorded?
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Comment 2: Different landowners. Need to show permission to do work off site.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
Response 2: The proposed 20' temporary grading easement is shown on C-201.
Rev. 1: Will this easement be recorded? Do you have permission from the off -site owner?
Provide written documentation of permission to work off site.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed above. Provide agreement from owner before plan approval.
Comment 3: Show how construction vehicles will get to this point. Stella lane is not built yet.
Response 3: The existing conditions are shown per previously approved plans. The Senior Living
Facility will not be constructed until developments from all plans listed in the
References on the Cover Sheet have been completed.
Rev. 1: Is an interim phase necessary in case it starts before those are finished? Or a note
stating that this cannot be begin construction until those plans are completed?
Otherwise an amendment will be necessary (like with the apartments).
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Comment 4: What is this line? It appears to be cut off and disturbed (Stream?)
Response 4: The Limits of Disturbance ends at the edge of the existing stream at this phase of
development. The portion of the stream extending north into the site was disturbed and
removed with the Mass Grading Plan, WPO201700037.
Rev. 1: Please remove note saying stream was removed. Was this part of the Virginia Water
Permit for Brookhill?
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Comment 5: silt fence needs to go around total disturbance.
Response 5: The silt fence has been revised as requested. See Sheet C-200.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Rev. 1: What do the arrows refer to that are flowing SE? If there is a diversion, or any
concentrated water, there needs to be trap or basin, not just silt fence. If there is a
diversion, it should be labeled as diversion.
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
C-201
Comment 1: Phase 2 still needs a CE with wash rack.
Response 1: A wash rack has been added at construction entrance for Phase 2 on Sheet C-201.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 2: Is this entrance going away with road plan revision?
Response 2: Yes, the entrance has been removed with this submission. See Sheet C-201.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 3: Show some top and bottom elevations of retaining walls. Ensure Code of development
requirements are met as well as steep slopes overlay district requirements per 18-30.7.5
DESIGN STANDARDS.
Response 3: Spot elevations have been added for the retaining walls. See Sheet C-201.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 4: Correct the limits of disturbance. Also, do not show silt fence through the pipe/endwall.
Response 4: The limited of disturbance and silt fence have been revised. See Sheet C-201.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-202
Comment 1: Detail?
Response 1: The Sediment Filter Boot (anti -vortex device) has been provided on Sheet C-204.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-203
Comment 1: Provide calculation showing required dimensions.
Response 1: Rip -rap outfall computations have been provided on Sheet C-203.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-204
Comment 1: Are there any changes proposed to the previously approved sediment basin? If so, please
clarify the changes. If not, please note that this is for reference only.
Response 1: A note has been added to Sheet C-204 for clarification.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-901
Comment 1: Remove note that it will be shown on final site plan. If so, this plan cannot be approved until
final site plan approved.
Response 1: The note has been revised as requested on Sheet C-901.
Rev. 1: Note still says more details can be found in the final site plan. What details are those?
Everything related to storm should be in the VSMP.
Rev. 2: Note still references the Block 8A final site plan. This plan cannot be approved with that
note because the Block 8A site plan is not approved. If details are not necessary, do not
include that note. If they are necessary, they should be on this VSMP plan.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Comment 2: This is a revision to the approved POI 11 on WPO 201800051, which showed 5.95 allowed
and 4.54 dev. Plan WP0201800080 for Block 813, currently under review, was using this
5.95 allowed number. WP0201800080 proposed an additional 0.83 CFS, which was allowed
based on the approved numbers (4.54+0.83=5.37 which is less than 5.95 allowed). This plan
shows 4.82 Dev, and if 0.83 is added to that it will be greater than the new allowed 5.49. It
appears this plan includes the additional 0.83 that was added in WP020180080. Therefore,
0.83 would not have to be added. Please clarify and call with any questions. We suggest a
note that says this plan incorporates WP0201800080's proposed drainage (if that is the case).
Response 2: As shown on Sheet C-901, the drainage area "DA11 — UNDETAINED" includes the
portion of Stella Lane that generates the 0.83 CFS from WP0201800080. While the
developed and allowed flows are different from those shown in WP0201800051 due to
drainage pattern changes as the development progresses, the numbers shown in the
Stormwater Outfall Table are accurate and account for the flow mentioned.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, please add a note that these calculations revise and
supersede the approved calculations shown in WPO 201800051 due to the progression
of development as explained in your above comment.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
Comment 3: This pond needs to outfall to a channel. It does not appear to be a channel per this drawing.
Please clarify. If this was missed on the approved plan for the pond, it was a mistake. Maybe
there is rip -rap that extends to the channel that is not shown here?
Response 3: Rip rap extends to the channel as shown in WPO201700037 and verified by site visit.
The rip rap has been shown in the existing conditions. See Sheet C-901.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 4: Channel appears to be here.
Response 4: Acknowledged. See comment response above.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-903
Comment 1: Is this all pond 11 and LS-I I treat? Provide note somewhere that this is for Block 8A only.
(the following sheet shows the overall removal) Also, reference the plan where Pond 11 and
LS-11 were approved to show their design and overall treatment and show that this plan
complies.
Response 1: A note has been added for clarity. See Sheet C-903.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C-905
Comment 1: Again, this must outfall to a channel.
Response 1: Acknowledged. See comment response above.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 2: DB & PG?
Response 2: The DB and PG have been added to the SWM Facility Easement callout. See Sheet C-
905.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 3: outlet protection?
Response 3: Rip rap outlet protection has been provided on Sheet C-905.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Comment 4: Provide updated routings. Also, bold text is hard to identify. Box it or use strikethroughs.
Response 4: The CN's for the site did not change and the routings have not been revised. The note
has been revised for clarity. See Sheet C-905.
Rev. 1: Note should say for information only, or no change is proposed from approved
WPDXXXX, previous submission could mean previous submission of this plan.
Rev. 2: The note on this sheet says, "boxed text indicated changes from WPO201800051". The
text in these boxes are water surface elevations. However, you did not provide any
updated routings. Provide backup showing where these WSE came from.
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
New comments:
Rev. 1: There is a SWM access road w/cul-de-sac shown. This needs a SWM facility easement.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
When will this be recorded?
Rev. 2: Easement shown. When will this easement be recorded?
Rev. 3: Comment addressed. SUB 201900138 shows the drainage easements.
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 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.
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;
hlt2://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=cdenMUo