HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202000009 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2020-04-09COUNTY 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: SRTS Greer/Jouett Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements
Project file number: WP02020-00009
Plan preparer: Brian McPeters [ brian.mcpetersgkimley-horn.com ]
Michael Mitchell / Kimley-Horn Associates
Owner or rep.: Matt Wertman [ mwertmangalbmemarle.org ]
Plan received date: 24 Feb 2020
Date of comments: 9 Apr 2020
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 for reasons listed, 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 ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. Provide a SWPPP including registration statement. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Please provide SWPPP at
earliest convenience. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Also see email sent, 11/15/2019 12:39 PM. Use county
template; link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/En ink
e and WPO Forms/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP temnlate.ndf
1. Revise title to ref. WP0202000009.
2. Sec. 1 /Registration Statement: Sec. VI. Certification — print /sign /date. Matt Wertman may sign.
3. Sec. 3 /Nature of Activity: Include as first item, first 3 paragraphs of p. 4 of Hydraulic Design Report.
4. Sec. 4, 5: Update ESC and SWM plan sheets, once comments addressed.
5. Sec. 6.E.: Person responsible for pollution prevention practices must be provided prior to receiving a
Grading Permit.
6. Sec. 8: List named individual responsible for inspections —if TBD, list TBD and provide name of the
individual responsible for inspections prior to receiving a Grading Permit.
7. Sec. 9: Signed Certification: Please complete. Matt Wertman (county representative) may sign.
8. Sec. 10: Engineering encourages FES-FPC /County of Albemarle schools to delegate environmental
compliance responsibility /liability to contractor (once selected) via Delegation of Authority form.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See email sent 11/15/2019 12:39 PM.
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Provide a PPP (11" x 17" Exhibit) —Recommend revise figure, p. 8 /SWPPP to show:
a. Rain gauge location
b. Concrete washout location
c. Solid waste dumpster location, if any
d. On -site fuel storage location, if any
e. Portable sanitary facility location
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.
This plan is disapproved for reasons listed, below. The Stormwater management plan content requirements
can be found in County Code section 17-403.
Revise Plan Title to include ref. to WPO202000009.
IF 1 : Water quantity summary, energy balance, detention summary tables are visually clear displays, but it
is difficult to interpret between them, in context of Hydraulic Design Report. For example:
a. Post -development 1-yr Q, outfall A, appears in separate locations as 4.17 (into BMP A), 0.99
(from BMP A), 1.17 (Energy balance [outfall A]), and 8.41 cfs (summary table).
b. Post -development 1-yr Q, outfall B, appears in separate locations as 1.32 (into BMP B), 0.66
(from BMP B), 0.29 (Energy balance [Outfall B]), and 23.06 cfs (summary table).
c. Post -development 1-yr Q, outfall C, appears in separate locations as 1.02 (into BMP C), 0.78
(from BMP C), 0.12 (Energy balance [Outfall C]), and 0.78 cfs (summary table).
d. For clarity, to aid review and minimize confusion, please provide a separate new table to this sheet
correlating each compliant -relevant 1-, 2-, or 10-3T _Q to a specific hydrograph (provide Hyd. No.
_). If Report pagination holds steady, please provide pg.# ref. to 189-p..PDF.
Examples: Report p. 32 correlates Hyd. No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 with plan sheet IF(1) Energy Balance
(Outfalls A, B, C pre- post-) values. Water Quality Summary table Outfall A Qn wd,ed (8.41cfs) is
from Report p. 112 (summary) /Annx. E., Hyd. No. 4., but a table index for 1-, 2-, 10-yr
compliant -relevant Q values is needed. Additional comments are possible.
e. Provide caption or narrative to supplement Energy Balance Summary table to guide review to
precise outfall locations (A, B, C) where energy balance equation is performed. It is unclear.
Please confirm outfalls depicted on IF(2) and table data on IF(1) indicate compliance with water quantity
requirements should:
a. Base bid only be awarded (sta. 304+27.08 - 316+66.26)
b. Additive bid item 1 be awarded in addition to a. (sta. 300+45.68 - 304+27.08)
c. Additive bid item 2 be awarded, in addition to b. (sta. 316+66.26 - 202+82.07)
d. Additive bid item 3 be awarded, in addition to c. (ref. sheet 1)
Note: Engineering must ensure whatever portion of the project is built complies with stormwater
quantity regulations. Also, ref. sheet 5D (base bid only inset).
2C 1
4. Stormwater runoff considerations note mentions both outfalls, whereas plan mentions outfalls A-F,
elsewhere. Please revise note consistent with multiple outfalls.
5. Adjacent Areas Note: `Route 10' may be relic text from a separate project.
6. Off -site Areas Note: If offsite borrow or waste areas exceed >10,000 SF, an ESC plan will be required for
the off -site area. Off -site area must be identified prior to Engineering issuing a Grading Permit.
7. Sequence /Maintenance Note, c.: Revise to read `...inspector must be notified of the offsite borrow or spoil
location at the en site pre -construction meeting to be held at county office building.
8. 2C(3), 2D(l) -Label
a. road /sidewalk
b. stone feature and provide 1 X w X d dimensions of this feature at Str. 4-2.
9. Report, p. 9: Caption beneath return period table list Min proposed pipe slope=0.30%. Albemarle drainage
plan review checklist, p. 2, item 3., specifies pipe slope at 0.5% min. Consider slope more nearly
approaching 0.5% rather than 0.2% min listed at VDOT Drainage Design Manual, 9.4.8.6. Repeat
experience /outcomes favor construction installation error if design grade <0.5%, though with daily
inspection, As -built and acceptance requirements typical of VDOT-county projects, concern abates.
10. Report, p. 7: Outfall B, 1 It
primary bullet: possible typo ref. to Outfall A. (Unclear how BMP B relates to
BMP A).
11. 21)1 : Add flow lines to storm sewer system pipes, Str. 4-1 thru 4-5, and Str. 4-6 to 4-5 similar to flow
lines shown on 4B.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
12. 5 D : Confirm that existing trailer access ramp may be relocated. The trailer is a series of nine trailers
connected to form a rectangular classroom complex. The ramp proposed to be relocated provides a second
ADA-point of access to the complex (constructed 2016), and may be required for fire safety (2nd exit point).
The existing nine trailers are configured with entrances south and north, both ADA. Please examine the
issue and revise design if ramp proposed to be relocated cannot be relocated. Note: If relocated to west
face of trailer/s, for example, to west end of north -most trailer, a relocated complex entrance /exit would
open into a classroom, not the central corridor. Check to see if this meets local /state ADA- or fire -access
requirements. Examine /confirm that a plan exists to locate a 2nd entrance meeting local and state access
requirements, since locations along east and west appear problematic. If east face, existing ramp at north
end of complex turns at the NE corner of north -most trailer, and bears south along this face of the complex,
so east side of the trailers does not offer a ramp relocation option if sidewalk is built as depicted on 5D (if
additive bid item 2 is not constructed).
E QQrCZ� C f DISTURB
DO NOT
DISTURB V (�7
ASPHALT_U
7 N a. DO NOT �
yR9 25O�RT� 25O LT
EXISTING- +13
D F TRAILER
ACCESS RAMP P.SO' R
TO BE 00' LT
RELOCATED p�T3'377Lo
'
to - BY OTHERS SCALE to �-
Sy
0 25' 50,
13. Sheet titling ends with 21)(4). Recommend sheet titles from sheet 3 onward to the last plan sheet.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
14. 3A: Provide ditch flowline to indicate that runoff from southern roadside of Lambs Lanes (between Sta.
305+00 and 306+25) is diverted from Outfall F to Outfall A, avoiding detention needs at Outfall F.
(Report, p. 7, Outfall A, primary bullet 4)
15. Report, p. 8: Methodology explains grate inlets analyzed manually via a spreadsheet using 4 inch /hr.
intensity. Unless mistaken, inlet capacity calculations require 6.5 inch / hr. reference event. Revise, as
needed, per VDOT inlet methodology (especially for Outfall C since Str. 3-3 is to serve as a control
structure in a detention pipe system (BMP C)).
16. Appendix C, p. 26: It appears untenable that pre -redevelopment land cover includes 0.92 Ac. undisturbed,
protected forest/open space or reforested land, out of land disturbance total of 2.11 Ac. Lambs Lane /Rd.
corridors and proposed disturbances occur on nearly exclusively existing managed turf, per DEQ
definitions. Provide exhibit identifying 0.92 Ac. Forest/Open Space, or revise VaRRM.xls and nutrient
purchase required for stormwater quality compliance.
17. Report, p. 28 /Appendix D: Ref. SWM comment item l.d., above, and provide additional table to correlate
stormwater outfall table compliant -relevant 1-, 2- and 10-yr values to a specific hydrograph.
18. Report p. 29 —Similarly, provide correlation between compliant -relevant energy balance summary table
values and a specific hydrograph. List title (Hyd. No. _) and report (.PDF) pg=#, if possible. Additional
comments are possible as follow-up to SWM review comments l.d., 17, 18.
19. 21)(1), 2D(3): Label floor dimensions of BMP A, BMP B (L X W).
20. 21)(2), 21)(4): Recommend increase scale to 1" =10" since images are quite reduced.
21. 2D(3): Provide dimensions for riprap emergency spillway.
22. 2D 2 : Provide riser structure base and rim elevations.
23. 2D(3) 21)(4), 5 (BMP B): Confirm 25-yr event will not inundate Lambs Road (SR 657). Note: BMP B
emergency spillway elev.=561.00 while 10-yr WSE=561.24' (spillway activated).
24. 4: Recommend extend ditch flowline arrows (between shared -use path and Lambs Ln.) from Sta. 312+75 to
BMP A.
25. 4: BMP A presents an approx. 5.5' vertical drop from EP, Lambs Lane, and presents risk. Provide runoff
protection barrier for vehicles.
26. 5: Propose landscaping or fixed visual barrier between EP, Lambs Lane, and BMP B.
27. 6(3): Recommend one or two 2" DIA holes in floor of Str. 3-3 upstream of weir wall to alleviate nuisance
ponding or overcome error of installation that may favor nuisance ponding.
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 disapproved for reasons listed, below. The erosion and sediment control plan content requirements can
be found in County Code section 17-402.
1. 2C 1 : List 2.11 Ac. estimated area to be disturbed with Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative.
2. 413: Provide existing contour labels south of TSB -I.
3. 413: Provide SAF between TSB-1 and Lambs Ln. during ESC Phase.
4. 413: Where proposed drainage grates are close to edge of new shared -use path, provide notes to ensure walk
has adequate area nearly flat leading to 3:1 or flatter grade downslope to edge of grate (recall issue at
sidewalk grate issue on Barracks Rd project). Design against mis-step leaving pedestrian unbalanced on
slope. A nearly flat shared -use path shoulder is essential in areas adjacent to BMPs or drainage grates
given young and middle -school students' tendency to veer from the path.
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 review staff is unable to meet with the public due to the covid-19 pandemic, until further notice. Please
call if any questions. J. Anderson, 434.296-5832 -x3069
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
Process;
After 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;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=cdengno