HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201700037 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2019-11-05
COUNTY 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 Section 1 Block 4A and Block 8A
Project file number: WPO201700037 Amendment 1
Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering – Ryan Yauger [ryauger@bohlereng.com]
Owner or rep.: Riverbend Development – Alan Taylor [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Plan received date: 12 Sept 2018
Rev. 1 received: 05 Feb 2019
Rev. 2 received: 31 July 2019
Rev. 3 received: 24 Oct 2019 (paper)
22 Oct 2019 (email revision)
Date of comments: 25 Oct 2018
Rev. 1 comments: 06 Mar 2019
Rev. 2 comments: 30 Aug 2019
Rev. 3 comments: XX Nov 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. Provide updated registration statement and exhibit showing areas covered. This exhibit should
reference WPO numbers that are covering certain areas. Rev. 1: The current permit is for 59.56
AC. The registration statement submitted shows 50.07. The current permit will need to be
modified to the reduced area if this is correct. Also, please show which operators are
responsible for which areas on the exhibit. Ensure that the areas match the registration
statements. Currently, the HUD project is 19.26 AC and the overall Brookhill project is
59.56. Also, there is a green color on the exhibit that is not in the legend. If it is overlapping
colors, provide explanation or change areas. Only one operator should be responsible for
each area. Rev. 2: An updated registration statement was not provided. Sheet C-107 does
not identify the operators for each area. Rev. 3: The referenced Sheet C-108 in your
comment letter appears to be missing. Also, the registration statement is not signed. Acreage
on registration statement is 59.56. Current permit already appears to be for 59.56 Ac.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Ensure PPP is updated on site with the approved plans. Rev. 1:Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
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. Provide updated stormwater calculations to show the quality and quan tity measures are met
with the new, expanded disturbed areas for the proposed change in land cover conditions
with this plan. Rev. 1: Calculations not provided. Updated Pond 4 routings? Water quality
tracking table? Rev. 2: Updated table was provided on Sheet C-901. Rev. 3: Comment
addressed updated table on Sheet C-913. Based on narrative on Cover Sheet, no changes.
2. Provide a narrative explaining the amendment. How much area has been added, changes proposed
with this plan. Rev. 1: See SWPPP comment regarding areas. Also, put the revision summary
(4 bullets) provided in the comment response letter on the plans (sheet C-100). Does this plan
change the designs of the basins, or just the elevations? Rev. 2: Comment not addressed.
Narrative with revisions not provided. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
3. Rev 1: [C-100] Title should say WPO201700037 amendment 1, not field revision 1. Rev. 2:
Comment not addressed. Title now says WPO2019….. Please label is WPO201700037
amendment 1. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
4. Rev. 1: Ensure proposed Greenway is labeled, not existing 100 ft buffer. Rev. 2: Comment
addressed.
5. Rev. 1: It is known that the location of Pond 10 is changing, however this plan revisions still
uses it as a sediment basin. If it is not going to be built, shouldn’t it be shown as removed on
this revision? Rev. 2: This area isn’t shown on this revision. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Pond 10 is currently used as a sediment basin and that is how it is shown on this plan.
6. Rev. 2: Note 2 Sheet C-200/201. Cannot propose disturbance to these preserved slopes until
a slope exhibit has been submitted and approved. Rev. 3: Sheets removed. Comment no
longer applies.
7. Rev. 2: How does Sheet C-900 apply to overall development master spreadsheet? Highlight
or summarize changes on Sheet C-901. Rev. 3: Sheets removed. Comment no longer applies.
8. Rev. 2: Can this plan amendment be expanded to include the current issues on site? Areas
near the VDOT pond? Areas near Polo Grounds Road? We have not received any exhibits
yet. Rev. 3: Comment no longer valid.
9. Rev. 2: Comment response letter was not provided. Rev. 3: Comment response letter was
provided.
10. Rev. 2: This plan does not appear to match the previous amendment that was su bmitted?
Perhaps we should coordinate a meeting to discuss. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
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 C-602 shows tree protection going through grading/disturbance. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
2. Sheet C-616 shows E&S measures going through preserved slopes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
3. Provide detail for modified mud trap. Reference the allowance in the VESCH. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
4. Expand perimeter controls on Sheet C-619. SSF stops in the middle of proposed grading. Rev. 1:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
comment addressed.
5. Are changes proposed to the sediment basins/ponds with this plan? Calculations were provided.
Are they revisions? Please clarify. If changes are proposed, revise the riser structure details, etc.
(cross them out and update). Show drainage areas to the basins to match the calculations. Rev. 1:
comment addressed.
6. Provide calculation showing SF meets the 100ft0/0.25 ac requirement. Rev. 1: Sheet C-614 A
shows one area that is less than 100ft/0.25ac silt fence. Rev. 2: This Sheet is no longer in the
plans. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
7. Clearly label basins on plans and match them with the calculations. For example, which basin is on
sheet C-618? Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
8. Rev 1 [C-602]: Show perimeter controls adjacent to Polo Grounds Rd. It appears the silt
fence is not shown. Rev. 2: This Sheet is no longer in the plans. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
9. Rev. 1 [C-614] There are two entrances shown (one on 29 and on e off Polo Grounds). Are
these private entrances? If so, please add a note that no construction vehicles shall use this
entrance. Rev. 2: This Sheet is no longer in the plans. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. However,
please note that VDOT entrance permits will be necessary for all construction entrances.
How many entrances total are proposed for this project?
10. Rev. 1 [C-616] The outfall to pond 11 must go to a channel. This sheet does not show the
outfall at a channel. Perhaps the rip-rap extends to the existing channel, but is not shown?
Rev. 2: This Sheet is no longer in the plans. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
11. Rev. 1: [C-621 and anywhere on site] Please add note regarding 2:1 slopes. Bond shall not be
released until stabilized. This can be steep slope seed mix or ground cover. Rev. 2: This
Sheet is no longer in the plans. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
12. Rev. 1: [C-618] Check matchlines. C-618 is listed on this sheet. Rev. 2: This Sheet is no
longer in the plans. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
13. Rev 2: MT-1 – can it handle 2.55 acres? Outfalls over steep slopes? How to prevent wash
outs? Detail or profile about outfall? Does this match the current conditions on site? An
area similar to this, closer the VDOT pond, has experienced failure around the outfall. Rev.
3: Comment not addressed. Also, DA is now larger for mud traps?
14. Rev. 3: [C-621] This plan does not match current conditions on site. The mud traps have
been removed and the County believes that the slopes are steeper than 2:1. The contractor
was going to verify that slopes are not steeper than 2:1. Are the mud traps proposed to be
re-installed in the field? Was the temporary slope drain installed?
15. Rev. 3: [C-619] The perimeter controls for the wall appear to be on the wrong side of the
wall. Also, the wall goes outside of the limits of disturbance.
16. Rev. 3: What is the difference/purpose of Sheets C-614 and C-614 A?
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
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;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=cdengwpo