HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202000004 Approval - County 2020-08-17�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
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Rev. 1 received:
Rev. 2 received:
Rev. 3 received:
Rev. 3 received:
Rev. 1 comments:
Rev. 2 comments:
Rev. 3 comments:
Approval:
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit plan review
Brookhill Blocks 9-11
3AIP0201800086(illrnow WPO20200004(rev 1 and on)
Collins Engineering — Scott Collins [scott@collins-engineering.com]
Riverbend Development —Alan Taylor [alan@riverbenddev.com]
21 Jan 2020
26 May 2020
01 July 2020
05 Aug 2020
28 Feb 2020
12 June 2020
03 Aug 2020
17 Aug 2020
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 approved. The
land disturbance permit cannot be issued and DEQ permit modified until the nutrient
credits are purchased.
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. If overall
Brookhill SWPPP is to be used, provide updated registration statement and an overall sheet
showing disturbed area covered by the registration statement. Rev. 1: 2 SWPPPs were provided,
however coverage map was not provided. Is this intended to have its own DEQ permit? Or will
the current riverbend development permit be revised to include this area? Please clarify. Rev. 2:
Is the total acreage now 78.32? The area highlighted on the legend only shows an additional 4.88
acres with this plan, however the highlighted map shows 18.85 acres. Please clarify. Rev. 3:
Comment not addressed. Per meeting on July 9', 2020, applicant is sending new
registration statement and coverage map which will cover this project and WPO20170037 —
amendment 2 which is anticipated to be approved at a similar timeframe. If not, a
registration and map just for this plan must be submitted. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
2. Rev. 2: Since this is going on the existing DEQ permit, the registration statement total area should
match the total area, not only the area with this plan. The current permit is for 54.39 acres. Should
the total now be 73.24 acres? Please clarify. Rev. 3: Same as comment above. Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
1. 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. If E&S plan is intended to be used for
PPP, ensure it shows all requirements and provide a note stating it is also PPP. 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 approved, 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 seal must be signed and dated on the calculations package. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
2. The Overall Brookhill Stormwater Quality Compliance Table must be updated and provided with
this application. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. [Sheet 2] Label the buffer as proposed greenway per the approved ZMA. There is no existing
buffer. Also, update note 2. Ensure greenway is labeled consistently throughout plans. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. 100' WPO stream buffer is still labeled on several sheets (5, 6, etc).
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. Please provide the following document on the plans:
htta://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/fo
rms/En ing eering_and_WPO_Forms/WPO_VSMP_Construction_ Record_ Drawings Policy 23M
ay2014.pdf Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. Please note that since this plan does not include the proposed road connection to Ashwood
Boulevard, an additional WPO Plan will be necessary for that road design before the associated
road plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Ensure this TMP is covered by the existing SWM maintenance agreement. Otherwise, a SWM
maintenance agreement will be necessary before plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Applicant acknowledged and will get SWM
agreement before plan approval. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
7. Is the proposed SWM preservation easement area the forest and open space easement? Or is it the
greenway that is to be dedicated to the county? If it is forest and open space, it should be labeled
as SWM forest & open space and the following note should be on the plan and plat: "The SWM
Forest and Open Space Easement is subject to the guidance set forth by DEQ in the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program. The areas will remain undisturbed in a natural, vegetated
state, except for activities as approved by the local program authority, such as forest management,
control of invasive species, replanting and revegetating, passive recreation (e.g., trails), and
limited bush hogging to maintain desired vegetative community (but no more than four times a
year)." Rev. 1: Plat will need to be recorded showing this easement area (11.34 AC). The plat
should have the same note. When will this plat be submitted? Rev. 2: The legend on Sheet 4
says SWM preservation area. Is this the SWM forest & open space? If so, please label it as
that. If not, please clarify the areas and hatches. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
8. Please show SWM facility easement around stormwater facility and access road. Rev. 1:
Please label as SWM facility & access easement. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
9. [Sheet 15] Show plan #, not just note stating, different set of plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. [Sheet 16] Is outfall pipe from the pond 12" or 15"? It is shown as 15" in E&S, but 12" in SWM.
Rev. 1: Comment no longer applicable.
11. [Sheet 15] Show design and drainage area for "proposed diversion associated with this set of
plans..."Rev. 1: Comment no longer applicable.
12. [Sheet 15] Clarify the note stating that "two proposed adequate pipe outfalls... sub area less than
1%........ Show drainage areas for each and compare to the overall area. Also label/distinguish
each concentrated outfall. This is slightly shown/labeled in the calculations packet for the outlet
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
protection, however, it is very unclear on the plans. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
13. [Sheet 15] Please distinguish drainage areas and outfalls with labels, such as 1, 2 3 or A, B, C. It I
very confusing to read and follow. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. [calculations packet] There is only one drainage area shown (DA A), when this area is actually
made up of several drainage areas? Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [calculations packet] What is the Qdev for the SWM outfall? Calculations show it must be less
than 0.14, but do not say what it is. Also, the flood protection states the same thing (post less than
pre, but does not give any numbers) Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [calculations packet] Please label remaining outlets (1-5) on the plans. Also, if these are just
sheet flow, they are not "concentrated flow" and do not have to be analyzed. How is flood
protection being addressed with these outlets, 1-5? The package only outlines channel protection.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
17. [runoff reduction] Please clearly show the 35.34 acres and associated areas that are being used in
the calculations. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
18. [Sheet 161 Retaining wall design must be provided since it is part of the SWM facility
grading. Rev. 1: Comment still applies. There are retaining walls surrounding the wet
pond. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Applicant says plans are pending. Rev. 3: Comment
addressed.
19. [Sheet 16] Provide safety bench and aeration for the level II wet pond per:
https://www. swbml2.vwrrc.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/ 11 BMP-Spec-No-14_WET-
PONDS vl-9 05112015.pdfRev. 1: Comment addressed.
20. [Sheet 16] Provide contour labels. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
21. [Sheet 16] Provide outlet protection for the inflow to the pond. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
22. Since there are no pipe/storm drain calculations, provide pipe design information for SWM
facility outfall (size, capacity, flow, velocity). Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
23. Rev. 1: [Sheet 4, and others] SWM preservation area should be labeled as, "SWM forest &
open space easement'. Rev. 2: See comment 7 above. It is shown correctly on other sheets,
however, Sheet 4 still shows "preservation area" Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
24. Rev. 1: Nutrient credits must be purchased before land disturbance permit can be issued.
Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. 2.1 Ib/yr must be
purchased. Rev. 4: Comment not addressed, will be completed before permit issuance.
25. Rev 2: [Sheet 17] Based on the water quality summary, WPO 201700037 Amendment 2
must be approved before this plan can be approved. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. Rev.
4: Comment addressed.
26. Rev. 3: See attached ordinance that was recently adopted. This applies to all plans that are not
currently approved. Ensure walls and grading meet these requirements. Rev. 4: Comment
addressed. Grandfathered due to initial site plan approval.
27. Rev. 3: [Sheet 22] Please provide the excel spreadsheet for the VRRM. Also, please ensure pond
B from WP0201700037 amendment 2 is included. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
28. Rev. 3: Has disturbance to preserved slopes been changed? Per road plan SUB202000082,
an exhibit was provided showing slopes less than 25%. This exhibit should be provided with
this plan, referenced with a date/title/approval date of exhibit. Preserved slopes can be
disturbed as shown on approved ZMA201500007. Ensure disturbance outside of what is
shown on the ZMA is part of the slopes exhibit and is clearly shown on this plan. The
exhibit should also have a professional seal and signature. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
29. Rev. 3: Please provide an updated calculations packet. Even if no changes, should submit
with each full submittal package and match the date of the plans. Rev. 4: Comment
addressed.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is approved, 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 3]: Ensure detail and notes for construction entrance match the design standards manual,
page 8.
htta://www.albemarle.org/ul2load/images/forms center/departments/community development/for
ms/design standards _manual/Albemarle _CountV Design Standards_ Manual_2015-04-
25 draft.odf Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
2. Please clearly show limits of disturbance vs property line vs buffer lines vs drainage divide lines
vs silt fence and tree protection lines. It is unclear in some locations. There is a note stating they
are offset for graphic reasons, however, silt fence should be INSIDE the limits of clearing and
grading because it requires disturbance for installation. Rev. 1: The limits of disturbance and
the tree protection are too close to the preserved slopes. They should be offset (ideally 5 ft)
in order to allow installation without disturbance to the slopes. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
3. Per section 2.4.1 Greenway and 2.4.2 Buffers of the code of development, both the greenway and
buffers shall not be located in any lots. Lots 1-12. 32-46 and 76-95 appear to have lot lines within
buffers. Please revise. Rev. 1: Per 2.4.2 Buffers, in the code of development, buffers shall not
be located within any private lot. Part of the Route 29 buffer is shown on lots (on sheet 11).
Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
4. [Sheet 2] Please update Block 4B and road plan notes. Do not list under review, simply list the
file #. Also note, the road plan is an SUB, not SDP. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed.
Road plan is SUB201700117, not SDP. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
5. [Sheet 2] Show DB & PG for all existing, recorded easements. This includes easements
associated with Block 413, etc. Rev. 1: Easement text was there but is not legible. It is too
small. Rev. 2: Block 4B easements are recorded and should have a DB&PG. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
6. [Sheet 3] Dimensions for diversion channel crossing are not legible. Please increase the font size.
Also, please distinguish between type A, B or V crossing. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. [Sheet 3] The project description in the narrative states that 19.77 acres will be disturbed, while
Sheet 5 states that 24.4 acres will be disturbed. Please clarify. Rev. 1: Sheet 3 narrative says
19.01 AC, sheet 17 says 18.85 AC and the registration statement says 19.77 AC. What is the
total disturbed area? It appears to be 18.85 AC based on calculations. Please ensure
everything matches. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
8. [Sheet 4] Provide a north arrow. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. [Sheet 4] Please label limits of construction. It appears that there is disturbance to preserved
slopes and greenway, which is not allowed per the approved ZMA. Also, please show the buffer
along 29 since this is an overall sheet. Rev. 1: Per 2.4.2 Buffers, in the code of development,
buffers shall not be located within any private lot. Part of the Route 29 buffer is shown on
lots (on sheet 11). Also, see comment 92 above regarding the location of E&S measures and
their location adjacent to preserved slopes. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
10. Provide drainage area to all silt fence showing that it meets the requirements of 0.25 ac per 100 ft
of silt fence. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [Sheet 5] The diversion dike to sediment trap # 1 will not function. There is a low point in the
southwestern comer of the drainage area (as drawn). Water will not flow to sediment trap # 1 as
drawn. Please add additional control at the low point and revise drainage area and diversion dike
to sediment trap # 1. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
12. Grading is shown in the buffer (greenway) and preserved slopes. This is only allowed as shown in
the approved ZMA. Rev. 1: See comment 42 above regarding the location of E&S measures
and their location adjacent to preserved slopes. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
13. Are the project limits the same as the limits of construction? Please clarify. Rev. 1: Comment
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
addressed.
14. Please clarify all hatches on the plan. A legend would be very helpful. Also a legend with
drainage divide line, soil type line, etc would be helpful. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
15. [Sheet 5] Note regarding 70' buffer at the top of the sheet is not sufficient. A sheet must show
that there is no disturbance to the buffer. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [Sheet 7] There is work shown outside of the project limits line? Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
17. [Sheet 7] Is the sediment trapping device for the construction entrance an existing trap? If not,
show the proposed grading. Also, SF is currently shown going through this trap? Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
18. [Sheet 7] Provide design information for proposed culvert (drainage area, flow, velocity, size,
etc). Also, show design information for proposed rip -rap outfall. Currently silt fence is also
shown going through the rip -rap. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. Please note that this will need
VDOT approval with the road plans. Please do not construct until you have VDOT
approval. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
19. [Sheet 7] 1:1 slopes are not allowed, even if temporary. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
20. [Sheet 7] The outfall to sediment basin #1 is not completely shown. Provide matchline or adjust
viewport. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
21. [Sheet 7] Provide permit or note that permit is not required for work in the stream with the
proposed culvert. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
22. [Sheet 10] Please clarify or revise ST #4 vs ST #3. Rev. 1: Comment addressed, however, now
there are two ST # 5 (the existing ST and then a new one in phase III?) Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
23. [Sheet 11] Proposed concrete washout is in the middle of a proposed road? Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
24. [Sheet 13] Show tops and bottoms of proposed retaining wall. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Please note that 6ft is the maximum allowed height. Some spots are exactly 6ft. This will be
a zoning violation if they are over 6ft. Also, retaining walls that cross lot lines must be in
easements and must obtain maintenance agreements. Rev. 2: Comment noted. Will be
addressed on subdivision plat.
25. [Sheet 14] Drainage areas for traps and basins do not appear to match what is shown on the plan
view sheets. Please clarify. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
26. [Sheet 14] Weir length for ST #1 is calculated as 17 ft., but is shown as 6 ft. on the plans. Also,
the storage area does not have a 2:1 length to width area. Please revise. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
27. [Sheet 14] Outlet protection design table should show the flow and/or velocities that design of
outlet protection is based on. Or add a note stating calculations are in the attached supplemental
calculation booklet. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
28. [Sheet 14] ST #2: The maximum embankment height should be 5' from the toe of the stone
outlet. This appears to be 6ft. Please revise. Rev. 1: comment addressed.
29. [Sheet 16] Ensure trash rack includes anti -vortex device. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
30. Rev. 1: [Sheet 5 & 141 SB #2 emergency spillway is over fill. Per the VESCH, page III-86,
emergency spillway shall not be constructed over fill material. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
31. Rev. 1: [Sheet 31 Please clarify and provide detailed sequence of construction. For example,
all perimeter controls for Phase I cannot be installed until the culvert is installed and the
stream can be crossed? Also, please note in step 412, ST # 5 is referenced to be installed. If
ST #5 is existing, please revise, or change St #'s. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
32. Rev. 1: The cover sheet says phasing: these blocks may be developed as 1 or 3 phases.
Ensure those phases (and how they will be executed/built)are clearly outlined in the E&S
plan. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
33. Rev. 1: [Sheets 4, 5, 18] How will the Route 29 buffer be replanted adjacent to the SWM
facility? There are 2:1 slopes within the 30ft portion that is allowed to be disturbed,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
however, it must also be able to be planted with shrubs and trees. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
34. Rev. 1: [Sheet 71 There is silt fence shown across where construction traffic needs to travel?
Rev. 2: Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
35. Rev. 2: [Sheet 11I Note near ST #6 still appears to reference ST #5. Please clarify. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
36. Rev. 3: Please add a note to the sequence requiring that preserved slopes be marked in the
field before grading in that area begins. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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, ajoint 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;
bft://www.albemarle.org/deptforrns.asp?departrnent--edengmTo