HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202000009 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2020-06-11COUNTY 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: WPO2020-00009
Plan preparer: Brian McPeters [ brian.mcpeters(&kimley-hom.com ]
Michael Mitchell / Kimley-Horn Associates
Owner or rep.: Matt Wertman [ mwertman(kalbmemarle.org ]
Plan received date: 24 Feb 2020
(Rev. 1) 28 May 2020
Date of comments: 9 Apr 2020
(Rev. 1) 11 Jun 2020
Reviewer: John Anderson
Approved pending: bid award /selection of contractor. SWPPP revisions contractor -dependent: TBD items
below.
Note: Purchase of nutrient credits (0.76 lb.), VAR10 permit, and print plans /SWPPP are required for
Grading Permit.
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 provisionally -approved. See text,
immediately above.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) — Approved pending TBD items, with contractor
selection (
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. Provide a SWPPP including registration statement. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Please p ide SWPPP at
earliest eenvenienee. (Rev. 2), Comment persists. Also see efnail sent, 11,115/2019 1139 . Use county
template; link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/forms/En ing eerie
g_and _W PO_Forms/Stormwater_Pollution_ Prevention_Plan _SWPPP template.pd
1. Revise title to ref. WP0202000009. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Sec. 1 /RRe istration Statement: Sec. VI. Certification — print /sign /date. Matt Wertman may sign. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Kimley-Horn will coordinate with Matt Wertman to sign SWPPP certification upon
approval of SWPPP contents.' Asefollow-up: Since SWPPP contents are acceptable, please coordinate
signature.
3. Sec. 3 /Nature of Activity: Include as first item, first 3 paragraphs of p. 4 of Hydraulic Design Report.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
4. Sec. 4, 5: Update ESC and SWM plan sheets, once comments addressed. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Sec. 6.E.: Person responsible for pollution prevention practices must be provided prior to receiving a
Grading Permit. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `...will be a member of the general contractor's team, is
TBD, and will be determined prior to acquiring 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. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant:
,...will be a member of the general contractor's team, is TBD, and will be determined prior to acquiring a
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
Grading Permit.... Once a contractor is selected, this selection will be updated to provide specific names
and contact information'
7. Sec. 9: Signed Certification: Please complete. Matt Wertman (county representative) may sign. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Kimley-Horn will coordinate with Matt Wertman to sign SWPPP certification upon
approval of SWPPP contents.' As follow-up: Since SWPPP contents are acceptable, please coordinate
signature.
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. (Rev. 1)
Persists. Applicant: `Kimley-Horn will coordinate with Albemarle County and the general contractor
(once selected) to get Delegation of Authority form signed by contractor.'
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 (I I" X 17" Exhibit) -Recommend revise figure, p. 8 /SWPPP to show. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
a. Rain gauge location
b. Concrete washout location
c. Solid waste dumpster location, if any (Rev. 1) No solid waste dumpster location indicated.
d. On -site fuel storage location, if any (Rev. 1) No on -site fuel storage location indicated.
e. Portable sanitary facility location
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) (Rev. 1) Comments either addressed or withdrawn where indicated,
as errors. Also, RMS Doc (CV) file: WPO202000009 Review comments WPO VSMP 2020-05-28.PDF.
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.
This plan is approved.
1. Revise Plan Title to include ref. to WPO202000009. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. 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). (Rev. 1)
Applicant: `To clarify: 4.17 cfs is total runoff entering BMP A, 0.99 cfs is total runoff leaving
BMP A, 1.17 cfs is undetained runoff from site only reaching Outfall A (not including offsite
runoff), 8.41 cfs is total combined runoff reaching Outfall A (combination of discharge from BMP
A and bypass).
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). (Rev. 1)
Applicant: `To clarify: 1.32 cfs is total runoff entering BMP B, 0.66 cfs is total runoff leaving
BMP B, 0.29 cfs is undetained runoff from site only reaching Outfall B (not including offsite
runoff), 23.06 cfs is total combined runoff reaching Outfall B (combination of discharge from
BMP B and bypass).
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). (Rev. 1)
Applicant: `To clarify: 1.02 cfs is total runoff entering BMP C, 0.78 cfs is total runoff leaving
BMP C, 0.15 cfs is undetained runoff from site only reaching Outfall C (not including offsite
runoff), 0.78 cfs is total combined runoff reaching Outfall C (in this case, discharge point of BMP
C is same as Outfall C).
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-yr-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 QD. e]opea (8.41cfs) is
from Report p. 112 (summary) /Apex. E., Hyd. No. 4., but a table index for 1-, 2-, 10-yr
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
compliant -relevant Q values is needed. Additional comments are possible. (Rev. 1) Applicant:
`Kimley-Horn has clarified the hydrograph references for the Detention Summary table and added
a hydrograph reference table for the Water Quantity Summary.'
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.
(Rev. 1) Applicant: `Kimley-Horn has added a note clarifying the analysis provided by the Energy
Balance Summary table. This analysis is looking at site runoff only to determine the 1-year
improvement needed when analyzing the combined runoff in the other tables.'
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).
(Rev. 1) Applicant: `Kimley-Horn has provided stormwater quality and quantity analysis for the scenario in
which all phases depicted in the plans are constructed. This is the scenario in which the maximum amount
of development and land disturbance is present at each outfall. In all other scenarios referenced in the
comment above, the SWM impacts would diminish or disappear altogether at each outfall. Therefore, the
most conservative analysis was provided to achieve SWM compliance under all scenarios.'
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. (Rev. 1)
Applicant: `Kimley-Horn has revised the note. No offsite areas are proposed to be disturbed by the
Engineer as part of this project. Contractor to provide ESC plan for offsite areas if needed for
construction.'
7. Sequence /Maintenance Note, c.: Revise to read `...inspector must be notified of the offsite borrow or spoil
location at the on site pre -construction meeting to be held at county office building.
8. 2C(3), 21)(1) —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. (Rev.
1) Applicant: `Kimley-Horn has revised the caption to note a minimum proposed slope of 0.67%. The
exception as noted is the detention pipes (minimum proposed at 0.32% to maximize storage provided and
detention time).'
10. Report, p. 7: Outfall B, 1 sr primary bullet: possible typo ref. to Outfall A. (Unclear how BMP B relates to
BMP A).
11. 2D 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.
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 (2°d 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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
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 constri(Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Ref. email to Applicant: 4/9/2020 4:41 PM.
.�rU � .y
-.F pOsl f/1
G L
E Q D1ST
O v DO NOT N v
DISTURB z V)
--S ASPHALTN DO NOT
N ti
ITURB LTa j
C f! F G r -T31
EXJSTlNG
TRAILER
ACCESS RAMP 2.50'RT
TO BE /50 LT
RELOCATED �T3
4fT Sim 6Y OTHERS ��
0 25' 50'
13. Sheet titling ends with 21)(4). Recommend sheet titles from sheet 3 onward to the last plan sheet. (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn. A��plicant: `Kimley-Horn has provided sheet titles as required per VDOT CADD standards
(does not include plan sheets, profile sheets, etc.). Sheet titles for all sheets are provided in the Index of
Sheets.'
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) (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. AAp��licant: `Note: Flow is not diverted to
Outfall A via ditch. Flow is captured in proposed curb and gutter and a flowline is created across the
entrances at 306+25 and 307+50 so that runoff reaches BMP A.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
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 Q.
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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `Kimley-Horn
considers the overgrown, forested area surrounding the site of BMP to be closer to forest/open space runoff
conditions in the pre -development condition. This area will be converted to managed turf in the post -
development condition. Please see attached exhibits documenting presence of forested area.' Engineering
has reviewed and accepts Exhibits. Also, RMS Doc (CV) file: WPO202000009 Review comments WPO
VSMP 2020-05-28.PDF.
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. 2D(1), 21)(3): Label floor dimensions of BMP A, BMP B (L X W).
20. 21)(2), 2D(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. 21)(3), 2D(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). (Rev. 1) Applicant:
`The BMP B emergency spillway discharges into a paved ditch and combines with offsite bypass from the
Albemarle High School parking lot. Then the runoff passes through an existing culvert and combines with
more offsite bypass from the Lambs Road roadside ditch as it reaches Outfall B (existing culvert
underneath Lambs Lane at the intersection). Per SWM calculations provided in the design storm (10-yr), a
reduction in peak discharge is achieved at the Lambs Road roadside in the Post -development condition.
The contributing runoff from BMP B is approx. 6% of the total runoff reaching Outfall B at the Lambs
Road roadside (see attachment). Therefore, not only does the runoff from BMP B insignificantly contribute
to the headwater adjacent the Lambs Rod roadside, but the BMP improves the existing situation.'
24. 4: Recommend extend ditch flowline arrows (between shared -use path and Lambs Ln.) from Sta. 312+75 to
BMP A. (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Kimley-Horn has added a callout noting that existing ditch between BMP A
and 312+75 is to be cleaned out. Flowline arrows are not provided because existing ditch is already present
and is not intended to be graded with new inverts or foreslopes.'
25. 4: BMP A presents an approx. 5.5' vertical drop from EP, Lambs Lane, and presents risk. Provide runoff
protection barrier for vehicles. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `Runoff protection is not provided since all
slopes adjacent Lambs Lane within BMP A are 4:1 or flatter (traversable and recoverable) and all hazards
(drainage structures) are located outside the roadway clear zone.
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) — (Rev. 1) Comments addressed. Also, RMS Doc (CV) file:
WPO202000009 Review comments WPO VSMP 2020-05-28.PDF
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan
is approved.
1. 2C(1): List 2.11 Ac. estimated area to be disturbed with Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
2. 4B: Provide existing contour labels south of TSB-1.
3. 4B: Provide SAF between TSB-1 and Lambs Ln. during ESC Phase.
4. 4B: 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. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. (Rev. 1)
Comment response: `Kimley-Horn has designed the shared use path roadside per VDOT Standards,
providing a 3'-wide shoulder (at 2% slope) adjacent a 2:1 slope that has less than a 4' drop-off (see
attachments for cross-section at Station 1025+50). This roadside is not considered a hazard per the
standard. Therefore, neither a wider shoulder nor handrail is required. The structure is also a DI-5, so the
grate will conform to the finished grade of the ditch as shown in the cross section. This is the same
scenario at Station 103+25.'
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 -0069
Process;
After SWPPP is revised and credits are purchased, 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 ($0, this project). The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid ($0). 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;
hLtp://www.albemarle.ora/deptforms.asp?dgpartment=cdenoTo