HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO202100007 Approval - County 2022-03-23COUNTY 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 Blocks 16 & 17
Project file number:
WPO20210007
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering — Scott Collins [scoff@collins-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.:
Crockett Corporation c/o Alan Taylor [alan@riverbenddev.com]
Plan received date:
08 Feb 2021
Rev. 1 received:
24 June 2021
Rev. 2 received:
03 Aug 2021
Rev. 3 received:
18 Oct 2021
Rev. 4 received:
07 Feb 2022
Date of comments:
10 Mar 2021
Rev. 1 comments:
26 July 2021
Rev. 2 comments:
27 Sept 2021
Rev. 3 comments:
23 Nov. 2021
Rev. 4
03 March 2022
Approval:
23 March 2022
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 approved.
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. Is this plan requesting its own DEQ permit or to be a part of the overall Brookhill permit? The
registration statement in the SWPPP currently shows it to be its own new permit. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
2. Please include an overall coverage map with VAR numbers for Brookhill. Rev. 1: Comment not
addressed. Rev. 2: Please include all VAR numbers, WPO numbers and their coverage
areas. They are shown below:
VARlOK793 (current permit) WP0201700037 : 58.01 AC
VAR ION605 (senior living)WP0201900004 : 5.07 AC
VARIOM149 (apartments) WP0201800051: 19.26 AC
VAR100563 (813) WP0201800080 : 7.02 AC
VAR100648 (9-11) WP020200004 :18.85 AC
VAR100937(IA) WPO202000045 : 1.20 AC
Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
Rev. 2: DEQ does not decrease the area of coverage. Since the current permit is for 58.01
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
AC and the map currently shows a coverage of 54.32, there will be no change to the permit.
The registration statement should be for modification with no area increase. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
3. Rev. 3: Please revise the registration statement. The areas in Section C should equal the
total land disturbance with the VAR permit, which is 58.01 AC with this project in
parentheses (16.25 AC). Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
4. Rev. 3: Please clarify total area of land disturbance. Based on the map exhibit you provided,
this is 16.25 AC. However, the narrative on Sheet 3 of the plan says 26.25 AC. Engineering
believes this plan is for 16.25 acres of disturbance only. The 26.25 was just showing future
compliance when area upstream will drain to SWM of this plan. Therefore, this current
plan is only to disturb 16.25 AC. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
5. Rev. 3: Provide a final, full SWPPP book. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
6. Rev. 4: Registration statement says total area for VAR permit will be 64.32 AC, but the
overall coverage map says 62.08 AC. Please clarify and make sure they match. Rev. 5:
Comment addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. No objection. Please update if there are any changes before approval.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is can be approved once the SWM agreement is recorded.
1. SWM Agreement must be executed before plan approval. Please contact Ana Kilmer
[akilmer@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3246] to complete his process. Rev. 1: Comment
not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. Rev. 4:
Comment not addressed. Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
2. Rev. 3: The 5.58 Ib/yr nutrient credits must be purchased before plan can be approved.
Please contact Ana Kilmer [akilmer@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 32461 to complete
his process. Nutrient credits must be purchased in accordance with the following hierarchy:
a. Upstream of where the discharge reaches impaired waters, if credits are
available;
b. Within the same 12-digit HUC, if credits are available;
C. Within the same 10-digit HUC, if credits are available;
d. Within the same 8-digit HUC, if credits are available;
e. Within an adjacent 8-digit HUC within the same tributary, if credits are
available; or
f. Within the same tributary.
Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
3. Please provide approved FDP plan that shows proposed improvements in floodplain. Rev. 1:
Comment not addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
4. This plan must be reviewed and approved by DCR for the DBIZ before this WPO can be
approved. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. Please provide a grading sheet. Ensure this sheet shows the tops and bottoms of all retaining walls
as well as all sensitive areas (greenway, steep slopes, buffers, etc.). Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
6. Please show all applicable buffers on all sheets (Polo Grounds Buffer, Perimeter Buffer) as
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
outlined in 2.4.2 of the Code of Development. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. Please provide a detail for proposed retaining walls. Rev. 1: Detail provided, however please
show the required reinforcement length on the plan view of the walls(grading sheet). Rev. 2: Is
this the BG label? If so, please add it to the legend. Ensure there is a legend for all labels on
the plan. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
8. [Sheet 15] There is a significant area outside of the drainage sub areas that appears to be
unaccounted for. This area is a change in land cover and increased sheet flow. Please show a map
with the areas used in the VRRM. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. Please show that there will be no impacts downstream from the increased sheet flow per
9VAC25-870-66-D. Rev. 1: Comment partially addressed. Please clearly indicate where
splash blocks are to be installed so it is clear for the contractor. Also please note on the
detail on sheet 17 that the downstream must be stabilized before these are installed. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
10. Please show where will roof drains be directed. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. Per the code of development, section 2.4.1 (page 18), there shall be no E&S or S WM in the
Greenway. Level spreader was not reviewed since it is currently shown in the Greenway. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
12. Please provide the excel files for 1) VRRM and 2) overall brookhill tracking. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
13. Provide more access manholes in the underground detention system. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
14. Minimum orifice size is 3". Wet pond B appears to be proposing a 2.5" orifice. Rev. 1: Waiver
request is under review by the county engineer. Rev. 2: Comment still applies. Rev. 3:
Comment addressed.
15. Storm pipe outfalls shall be released into a stormwater conveyance system. Both basins A & B do
not appear to outfall into a channel. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. There were no floodplain impacts shows on the ZMA near proposed Basin A, therefore it should
not be disturbed. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
17. Provide pipe calculations for all pipes from SWM facilities to outfall point. Rev. 1: Please
double check velocities in pipes. They should be 15 ft/s or less. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
18. Mitigation sheet should not be necessary since Greenway cannot be disturbed as shown. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
19. Rev. 1: Please update sheet 20 with the latest spreadsheet and clearly show that you are
meeting the 25% nutrient removal on site for the overall brookhill development (25% of
85.2 is 21.3 and less has been purchased). Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
20. Rev. 1: According to the provided master spreadsheet, this project can purchase only 5.64
lb/year, unless the extra is going to be needed for another area of Brookhill. Rev. 2:
Comment addressed.
21. Rev. 1: Retaining walls in storm easements should be avoided if possible. Some examples
(near lot 7, lot 123). Rev. 2: Has Stormtech reviewed the design in regards to the location on
site and the retaining walls? Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
22. Rev. 2: Please provide a cross section at the following locations:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
t Rev. 3: Comment addressed.
23.Rev. 4: Please double check all easements. Two examples
in particular, the underground storage A access road/public
drainage easement (between lots 122 & 123)isn't clear and
the outfall from detention basin A (it is over 50 ft wide).
Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
24. Rev. 4: Please clearly label the WPO 100 ft buffer.
Please label the contiguous wetlands and show the 100 ft
measurement. The buffer line near basin A does not appear
to measure 100 ft:
addressed.
Rev. 5: Comment
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 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 2] Please show the DB & PG for all existing easements. Rev. 1: Please double check if
the Greenway easement plat was recorded. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
2. [Sheet 2] Please show current existing conditions. For example, there is no building in block 3.
Also, are the culverts and pedestrian tunnel under polo grounds installed or proposed? If they are
not installed yet, this plan cannot rely on them. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. However, FYI -
There must be a WPO which addresses installation details and sequence for the pedestrian tunnel
and culverts. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. WP0201800013 Amendment 2 was submitted.
3. Ensure there are no slopes steeper than 2: 1. For all slopes steeper than 3: 1, please specify
landscaping that can withstand these slopes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
4. Is this a balanced site? Or will there be import/export? Please show a stockpile area. Rev. 1:
Comment addressed.
5. [Sheet 16] Ensure the anti -vortex plate option is checked for the trash rack. Rev. 1: Comment
addressed.
6. Please specify how risers in basins will be anchored on the E&S sheets, do not refer to SWM
sheets. Also, same thing for anti -seepage collars. Contractor needs to be clear on the details
needed for E&S. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
7. Provide a detail for the proposed baffles. Ensure the detail states that baffles must extend from the
bottom to 6" above the overflow. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
8. The bottom elevation of dry detention basin A should be lower than the E&S Sediment Basin A.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
9. Preserved slopes and Greenway should only be disturbed as approved on the ZMA. Some grading
and limits of clearing appear to touch preserved slopes and greenway. Limits of clearing should
stay approx.. 5ft from these areas to prevent disturbance. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. Rev. 1: Please add to the sequence that the preserved slopes and Greenway must be flagged
or marked before land disturbance can start. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
11. Rev. 1: Diversion dikes are long. Please ensure the drainage area to each is not more than 5
acres per VESCH 3.09 design specifications. Rev. 2: Comment addressed.
12. Rev. 1: Provide ACOE (Vincent Pero) permission for outfall locations/rip rap that ties into
existing stream. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Rev. 3: Comment not addressed. 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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
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?departrnent===cdengno