The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWPO201200049 Review Comments 2013-02-19 Michelle Roberge From: Brian Smith [bpspe@embargmail corn] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:52 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Michelle, That wasn't a very definitive answer. Let me try this question—if the school chooses to use the new road as an earthen dam, will the county require a typical earthen spillway? Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embargmail.com From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge@albemarle.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:07 AM To: Brian Smith Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Hi Brian, I had a chance to look over your proposed SWD option 1 and option 2. At this point, it is difficult to tell which one is a better option. Either one may work, but I would need a complete design for review to see the impact in the area. I also want to comment on our discussion about the 16%impervious cover and water quality. In your case, I will honor what Phil discussed with you, but for future projects, please refer to Section 2 in the blue book. Section 2-22: Note that the designation of the 16%impervious cover value is not intended to be a threshold for water quality compliance. Simply stated, a development with less than 16%impervious cover should be reviewed for the type and distribution of the impervious cover prior to determining that no water quality measures are required. -Michelle Roberge From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpsoeCa�embargmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:02 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: Miller School - New Entrance Good morning, I thought it might help if you saw a picture of the SWD options. You know, a picture is worth a thousand words metaphor. Another option, option 3, could be a new pond between the existing pond and the road where the road is not used as an earthen dam. We could create a new one. But I think this would be weird—a lot of fill areas. So, option 1, option 2 or option 3 or any of them would be fine. Thoughts! i Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspenembargmail.com From: Brian Smith [mailto:bosae(aembargmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:04 AM To: 'Michelle Roberge' Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Michelle, So, I will summarize my question in hopes that you will understand it clearly. If not, give me a buzz. If the school does not want to remove any of their existing roads then they will need to do SWD. This creates the question of whether to use the existing pond and/or create a new one just below it. If we use the area below it, then a natural earthen dam would be the loop road. It may be worth considering. With this scenario, they could keep the existing wet pond and have a dry SWD pond just downstream. BTW, did you check on the water quality topic with DCR? The one that excludes projects if the impervious area on the property is less than 16%? Thanks! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 4:25 PM To: Brian Smith Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Hello Brian, Thanks for this information. I will be able to look into this tomorrow. -Michelle From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspe(a�embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:57 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Good morning, I spoke with Preston Stallings this morning, my contact from the Miller School, and shared with him the options you outlined below. He will check with their board and get back to me. His first reaction was they did not want to lose these entrances. But, we'll see. 2 Question. If the Miller School board of trustees wishes to go with the pond option, would it be acceptable to use the loop road as the earthen dam? In this scenario, the primary spillway would be the pipe as currently designed with a riser structure that has the proper flow control for the 10-year storm. The emergency spillway could be culvert(s) under the roadway (placed at the 10-year elevation) or a combination of culvert(s) and a larger primary spillway. Thoughts? Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:01 AM To: Brian Smith Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance No problem Brian. Thanks, Michelle Roberge From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspeftembargmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:03 AM To: Michelle Roberge Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Good morning Michelle, Thank you for your prompt response. I'll see what I can do. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge@ albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:25 PM To: Brian Smith Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Hello Brian, 3 ' I talked to Glenn regarding the areas of pavement to remove. We are okay with removing the existing north entrance, existing south entrance, and areas near the main campus that you pointed out today. We are also okay with turning the lily pond on campus to a SWM pond. Thanks, -Michelle Roberge From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspe(&embargmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:28 PM To: Michelle Roberge Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Michelle, Thank you. For clarity,the intent is not to avoid preparing a SWM plan. It was an option that was suggested and found acceptable by the school and Phil. But, moving forward, I'm sure the school will not be able to find enough pavement on the school grounds to remove the amount of impervious area that would match the length of the new entrance. However,they originally told me they wanted to keep the existing main entrance. But, with this new knowledge I wonder if they would reconsider. So, before I ask them, would you and your supervisor, find this to be acceptable? Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge@aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:09 PM To: Brian Smith Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Hello Brian, Okay let me clarify. Hopefully this answers your three questions. 1) I only want to recommend gravel and pavement areas to be removed to be located on your proposed site and not private driveways or farmfield access.This is because there may be other solutions you can explore. However, since the original intent is to avoid having to prepare a SWM plan,then I would require gravel and pavement areas to be removed to be located on your proposed site. 2) I have no issues with the mitigation plans that are on Sheet C6.1. 3) The attached form is for the E&S Plan Resubmittal WPO Application#WP0201200049 only. Mitigation Fees are not necessary as mentioned above. A$300 is required for the E&S Plan Resubmittal. Thanks, 4 Michelle Roberge From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspe(aembargmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:03 PM To: Michelle Roberge Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Michelle, Two items pop to mind that I would like to clarify since you are new to town. See highlights in red below. Over the years, we interpret recommend as a suggestion, and a requirement as a shall or you don't get approval. So, to be absolutely clear, is your recommendation a suggestion or a mandate? The other item is the mitigation. Aren't we honoring Phil's email that approves the mitigation plan or is that a renege too? One more question. The school has paid the E & S fees and the mitigation fees. Is this form for stormwater management? If so, would you like $300.00 with this application? Thank you. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embargmail.com From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:42 AM To: BRIAN P. SMITH Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Miller School - New Entrance Hello Brian, No worries. I am happy to answer all your questions. My interpretation of Phil's comment is for the applicant to provide demo plan sheets of the proposed pavement and gravel to be removed with the complete set of plans. A GIS Map will suffice but it should be added to the complete set of plans and legible to locate property and areas to remove. We still recommend that the gravel and pavement areas to be removed to be located on your proposed site and not private driveways or farmfield access. I have also attached the WPO application for a resubmittal.The file number is WP0201200049. Please address my recommendations from the site plan into the WPO plans to avoid duplication of comments. If you would like to come in to discuss mitigation measures that could be explored, please feel free to come in the office from 2-4pm on Thursdays. Thanks, Michelle Roberge From: BRIAN P. SMITH [mailto:bpspeOembargmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:31 AM 5 To: Michelle Roberge Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: Re: can you review before i send out. Good morning Michelle, Thank you for your quick response. A few comments. I read the text you quote below and I interprete it differently. If we are talking about bonding, we could be talking about bonding a forecoming approved plan - like the one that shows the driveways to be removed.Not some stormwater detention plan that has never been shown or discussed. This is crazy. I can't believe we are talking about SWM at this stage of the project. I have never received an email or letter or a verbal comment that the compensation method for increased impervious area was not an acceptable method. This was back in July 2010. On the contrary, and as I told you yesterday, this was an agreed upon method discussed with Phil prior to me asking the trustees of the school if they had some impervious areas on their property they could revert to grass. As far as county control is concerned. I will ask the school if they have control of this area. If they do, and the county bonds the driveway to be converted back to grass, then the county has control. Glenn, if you have read this far, I need a little understanding on your part. I know you and Phil did not see eye to eye all the time. I hope you are not changing ships on the concept of impervious compensation, as you may have a different view on the subject. Very unfair and not nice to boot. Also, Michelle, you asked yesterday for four sets of plans and 2 sets of computations. As I was driving down the road and thinking about this, I remembered JT made a comment on the revised plans that were submitted in early December. His comment was about the foot candle numbers near the state road. He has the most recent set and I believe it was a total of four sets as I look at my printing invoice and found six sets were made and two were given to the owner. Does he have any extras you can share? Does the inspector need a review set now? Doesn't he get the signed copy when construction begins? I don't really want to spend another$300 of the clients money if you can get by with what you already have. I hope for a quick resolve of these issues. Thank you. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville,VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspePembargmail.com Hi Brian, I mentioned to you earlier that I will get back to you after I had a discussion with my supervisor regarding the comment that was initiated by Phil,which is listed below. "Please show and label all areas of pavement and gravel demolition (1-4).The letter from July 7th, 2010 referred to by the applicant on page C9.0 ...This work will be bonded as part of the Stormwater Management/Mitigation Bond and is therefore,a critical part of the plan set." This does not appear to be an enforceable mitigation concept. The proposed locations are not well documented, and some appear to be on what constitute private driveways or farm field access. The county would have no control over these areas,and they could be repaved or modified without county involvement. Areas covered on the site area itself, and within the project, are documented on approved site plans and could be monitored. If this is not an acceptable compromise,there are perhaps other unrelated mitigation measures that could be explored. We still recommend that 6 the gravel and pavement areas to be removed to be located on your proposed site. rlease do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Michelle Michelle Roberge County Engineer Department of Community Development County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3458 7