HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201700037 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2020-07-31�A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
r „P 401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
VSMP Permit plan review
Project title: Brookhill Section 1 Block 4A and Block 8A
Project file number: WPO201700037 Amendment 2
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering [scoff@collins-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.:
Riverbend Development — Alan Taylor [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Crockett Corporation
Plan received date:
20 March 2020
Rev. 1 received:
01 July 2020
Date of comments:
27 May 2020
Rev. 1 comments:
31 July 2020
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. Please provide an updated registration statement and overall coverage map showing the total
acreage to be covered by this plan/permit. The current permit is VARlOK793 and is for 54.39
AC. Is the new total 63.29 AC since this plan is adding 8.9AC? Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Per meeting on July 9", 2020, applicant is sending new registration statement
and coverage map which will cover this project and WPO20200004 which is anticipated to
be approved at a similar timeframe. If not, a registration and map just for this plan must be
submitted.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Please provide a PPP to be inserted in the SWPPP. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
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.
1. Professional engineering seal should be signed and dated. The calculations packet should also
have a signed and dated seal. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. Topography should be at lest field verified within the last year. The cover sheets references a
2018 date. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
3. Preserved slopes and the greenway cannot be disturbed as shown. Only those shown on approved
ZMA 2015-007 as greenway impacts and preserved slope impacts may be disturbed. Blocks 3 &
4 did not appear to show any impacts on the ZMA. This applies to the proposed sediment basin B.
The Code of development section 2.4.1 also states that SWM facilities may not be in the
greenway. Please note that sediment BasinB/wet pond B was not fully reviewed since the location
and design will change based on this comment. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
4. [Sheet 6] Engineering believes the slopes shown below are steeper than 2:1 in the field. Please
verify.
5.
1 /: B / ) Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Ensure the greenway is correctly labeled throughout the plan. It is not a 100 fit WPO buffer
It is a
proposed greenway. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Ensure all approved plan numbers are shown, and accurately depicted. For example, the
"approved ice rink" is WPO201800050 and it is not approved. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. What is the extended area below? Is it for maintenance/access? This was not shown on the ZMA.
I\was only a primitive trail. Also, this parcel would need to be added to the SWM agreement.
"o
m
MAFPEU%g0D%AIN�O
0.
2 TO
,2NCE1#2 /
119AREA 9 //
*ice — / Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
8. Please provide the actual excel file for the forms on Sheet 19. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. All applicable plans will need to be amended to show the change with the removal of the level
spreaders, pond 4 changes, etc. This can be a simple sheet with a summary referencing the
changes and this plan number. Engineering can assist with gathering all of these plans. However,
it is important that they all get amended so when it is time for bond release, the most acute
approved designs are shown. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. This will be a condition at time of
approval.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
10. What approved plan shows the removal of LS-10 as shown in the tables on Sheet 19? Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
11. Rev. 1: Provide an interim sheet or note showing grading/E&S if the ice rink plan is not
approved or built. It is currently under review, not approved. WP0201800050,
SDP201800049 and SUB201800115 are not approved.
12. Rev. 1: Please see attached zoning ordinance update that now applies to all grading. Ensure
this site meets all requirements. This applies only to new disturbed areas, not already
approved areas, for example, around pond 4.
13. Rev. 1: [ Sheet 201 It is unclear where the new Pond B is located in this chart. Please clarify.
14. Rev.1: [Sheet 151 Please label the SWM facility / access easement. Believe it is shown, but
not labeled.
15. Rev. 1: [Sheet 181 Please show the overall location of this LS. Those unfamiliar with the
plans have no context of its location.
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, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion
control plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
1. [Sheet 4] How much area is going to the single inlet shown below? It appears to be more than 1
ac, which is the maximum drainage area allowed per 3.07 in the VESCH. It is understood that it
goes to the sediment basin, but it also needs to function and not get clogged.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. Engineering suggests showing the Phase II E&S for Block IA along Salamander road, unless the
applicant intends to submit a separate WPO plan for that Block. For example, show inlet
protection for any inlets. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. Please show the proposed silt fence and tree protection in a dark linetype. It currently appears to
be the same as existing items. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Linetype is still light, but label says
proposed.
4. [Sheet 14] Is the note shown below supposed to say amendment 2? Or is it supposed to say
ived amendment 19
PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
THE APPROVED LIMITS OF
-- DISTURBANCE UNDER WPO
201700037, AMENDMENT #1
3
� i Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
5. Rev. 1: [Sheet 171 Ensure the anti -vortex box is checked on the detail for the trash rack.
6. Rev. 1: Please slow mulching in every location where there is TS or PS.
7. Rev. 1: [Sheet 31 Please add to the sequence: flag the location of preserved slopes before any
disturbance occurs.
8. Rev. 1: [Sheet 41: No comment, just wanted to note that this sheet is very appreciated and is
helpful for reviewing!
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;
bgp://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=cdenMo
ORDINANCE NO. 20-18(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE Il, BASIC REGULATIONS,
AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Chapter 18, Zoning, Article ll, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 4.3.3 Grading standards
By Amending:
Sec. 30.7.5 Design standards
CHAPTER 18. ZONING
ARTICLE It. BASIC REGULATIONS
4.3.3 Grading Standards
The following design standards apply to any land disturbing activity requiring a Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control Program (VESCP) application plan, or a Virginia Stormwater
Management Program (VSMP) application plan, or both.
A. Retaining walls. Retaining walls shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. Height. The maximum height for a single retaining wall, measured from grade to
grade, shall be ten feet, except as provided in subsection (A)(3). When the overall
retained height would exceed ten feet, the retaining wall shall be broken into multiple
stepped walls.
2. Multiple stepped walls; separation. A minimum horizontal distance of three feet shall
be maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall system, and shall be
landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers.
3. Incorporation of wall into design of a building. Retaining walls may be incorporated
into the design of a building so that they become part of the building. Retaining walls
incorporated into the design of a building shall not be subject to height limitations of
subsection (A)(1).
B. Cuts and fills. Any cut or fill shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. Rounding off. Any cut or fill shall be rounded off to eliminate sharp angles at the top,
bottom and side of regraded slopes.
2. Location of toe of the fill slope. The toe of any fill slope shall not be located within ten
feet horizontally of the top of an existing or proposed cut slope.
3. Tops and bottoms. Tops and bottoms of cut and fill slopes shall be located either: (i)
a distance from existing and proposed property lines at least equal to the lesser of
three feet plus one -fifth (1/5) of the height of the cut or fill, or ten feet; (ii) any lesser
distance than provided in subsection (13)(3)(i) the zoning administrator determines
would not adversely impact the abutting parcel based on information provided by the
owner of the abutting parcel; or (iii) on the abutting parcel if the owner obtains an
easement authorizing the slope on the abutting owner's parcel.
4. Steepness. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than a 2:1 (50 percent) slope. If
the slope is to be mowed, the slope shall be no steeper than a 3:1 (33 percent)
slope.
C. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion. Reverse slope benches or a
surface water diversion or both shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
When required. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion or both shall be
provided whenever: (i) the vertical interval (height) of any 2:1 (50 percent) slope
exceeds 20 feet; (ii) the vertical interval (height) of any 3:1 (33 percent) slope
exceeds 30 feet; or (iii) the vertical interval (height) of any 4:1 (25 percent) slope
exceeds 40 feet.
2. Width and location of benches. Reverse slope benches shall be at least six feet wide
and located to divide the slope face as equally as possible and shall convey the
water to a stable outlet. Benches shall be designed with a reverse slope of 6:1
(approximately 17 percent) or flatter to the toe of the upper slope and have a
minimum of one foot. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two percent
and three percent, unless accompanied by appropriate design and computations.
3. Flow length within a bench. The flow length within a reverse slope bench shall not
exceed 800 feet unless accompanied by appropriate design and computations
demonstrating that the flow length is designed to be adequate to ensure the stability
of the slope and prevent or minimize erosion.
4. Surface water diversions. Surface water shall be diverted from the face of all cut or
fill slopes or both, using diversions, ditches, and swales, or conveyed downslope by
using a designed structure. The face of the slope shall not be subject to any
concentrated flows of surface water such as from natural drainage ways, graded
swales, downspouts, or similar conveyances.
(§ 30.7.5; Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14; § 4.3.3; Ord. 20-18(1), 7-15-20)
State law reference — Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(1), (2), 15.2-2286(A)(4).
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sec. 30.7.5 - Design standards.
The following design standards apply to land disturbing activity to establish a use permitted by
right or by special use permit in the steep slopes overlay district.
A. Retaining walls. Retaining walls shall meet or exceed the following minimum
standards:
1. Wall height. The maximum height for a single retaining wall, measured from grade
to grade, shall be six feet, except as provided in subsection (A)(3). When the
overall retained height would exceed six feet, the retaining wall shall be broken into
multiple stepped walls.
2. Multiple stepped walls; separation. A minimum horizontal distance of three feet
shall be maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall system, and
shall be landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten foot centers.
3. Incorporation of wall into design of a building. Retaining walls may be incorporated
into the design of a building so that they become part of the building. Retaining
walls incorporated into the design of a building shall not be subject to height
limitations of subsection (A)(1).
B. Cuts and fills. Any cut or fill shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
Rounding off. Any cut or fill shall be rounded off to eliminate sharp angles at the
top, bottom and side of regraded slopes.
2. Location of toe of the fill slope. The toe of any fill slope shall not be located within
ten feet horizontally of the top of an existing or proposed cut slope.
3. Tops and bottoms. Tops and bottoms of cut and fill slopes shall be located either:
(i) a distance from existing and proposed property lines at least equal to the lesser
of three feet plus one -fifth of the height of the cut or fill, or ten feet; (ii) any lesser
distance than provided in subsection (b)(3)(i) the zoning administrator determines
would not adversely impact the abutting parcel based on information provided by
the owner of the abutting parcel; or (iii) on the abutting parcel if the owner obtains
an easement authorizing the slope on the abutting owner's parcel.
4. Steepness. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than a 2:1 (50 percent) slope. If
the slope is to be mowed, the slope shall be no steeper than a 3:1 (33 percent)
slope.
C. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion. Reverse slope benches or a
surface water diversion or both shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. When required. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion or both shall
be provided whenever: (i) the vertical interval (height) of any 2:1 (50 percent) slope
exceeds 20 feet; (ii) the vertical interval (height) of any 3:1 (33 percent) slope
exceeds 30 feet; or (iii) the vertical interval (height) of any 4:1 (25 percent) slope
exceeds 40 feet.
Width and location of benches. Reverse slope benches shall be at least six feet
wide and located to divide the slope face as equally as possible and shall convey
the water to a stable outlet. Benches shall be designed with a reverse slope of 6:,
(approximately 17 percent) or flatter to the toe of the upper slope and have a
minimum of one foot. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two
percent and three percent, unless accompanied by appropriate design and
computations.
Flow length within a bench. The flow length within a reverse slope bench shall not
exceed 800 feet unless accompanied by appropriate design and computations
3
demonstrating that the flow length is designed to be adequate to ensure the
stability of the slope and prevent or minimize erosion.
4. Surface water diversions. Surface water shall be diverted from the face of all cut or
fill slopes or both, using diversions, ditches, and swales, or conveyed downslope
by using a designed structure. The face of the slope shall not be subject to any
concentrated flows of surface water such as from natural drainage ways, graded
swales, downspouts, or similar conveyances.
(§ 30.7.5; Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14; Ord. 20-18(1), 7-15-20)
State Law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280 (1), (2), 15.2-2286 (A)(4).
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct
copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by
a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on July
/15, 2020.
nfy'S �
Clerk, Board of County u &FIsors��
Mr. Gallaway
Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKee)
Ms. Palmer
Ms. Price
Ave
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y