HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201300072 Correspondence 2013-11-26 John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:18 PM
To: Scott Collins; Nena
Cc: Glenn Brooks
Subject: Planning Application Review for WPO201300072 Briarwood Commercial Lots.
Attachments: WPO201300072 SUB201400066-briarwood-081814rev-3.pdf; WPO201300072-
SUB201400066-briarwood road+wpo approval.pdf
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number= WP0201300072
Reviewer=John Anderson
Review Status =Approved
Completed Date =08/18/2014
Attached—Approval Memo/Road WPO plan
Attached—Conditional Approval Memo/Road plan
Note:
Scott/Nena—We still need(copy of) 2014 General VSMP Permit Coverage Letter from VDEQ,whenever you
receive it.
Thank you both for your support and patience.
-best,
John
434.296-5832—ext 3069
1
John Anderson
From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [Nathran.Austin @vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:30 AM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Scott Collins; Nena; Glenn Brooks; Mark Graham; Ana Kilmer;Todd Shifflett; David Benish;
Christopher Perez; Max Greene
Subject: RE: Briarwood, WPOs
John,
I've had a chance to discuss this with Joel, and we only want to see the riprap channel if it is required due to
velocity/erosion concerns. Short of that,we would like to only see outlet protection at the end of the outlet pipe from
the underground detention. Do we know if the discharge velocity is such that a grass-lined channel will be adequate or
is riprap required to prevent erosion?
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville,VA 22911
Phone: (434)422-9782
Fax: (434) 984-1521
From: John Anderson [mailto:jandersonaaalbemarle.orq]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Cc: Scott Collins; Nena; Glenn Brooks; Mark Graham; Ana Kilmer; Todd Shifflett; David Benish; Christopher Perez; Max
Greene
Subject: Briarwood, WPOs
Troy,
Please speak with Joel DeNunzio about riprap proposed for VDOT RW at outfall from SWM detention system, Briarwood
Gas Station—it was topic of discussion Aug-7, but recollection is imprecise. I have upset things today,and intend to
approve Briarwood WPOs as soon as possible. I realize you are unable to respond to this request today. Thank you for
your help-
John El,Anderson, P1; Civil Engineer[l
Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3069
1
John Anderson
From: Scott Collins [scott @collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 12:52 PM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Nena; Glenn Brooks; Mark Graham;Todd Shifflett; Ana Kilmer; David Benish; Christopher
Perez;Troy Austin; Adam Long; Graham Murray
Subject: RE: WPO approval delayed -Briarwood
John-
I am just following up on Adam Long's conversation with you for the record. The removal of the riprap ditch in the right-
of-way was a topic of discussion at the meeting on August 7th. Troy Austin with VDOT,who controls what improvements
are constructed in the r/w, asked us to remove the riprap ditch during the meeting. Max Greene, in the meeting,
concurred with Troy and we removed the ditch,as instructed in the meeting by VDOT.
Collins Engineering takes great professional pride and goes to many steps to ensure that plans that are produced meet
county regulations, and that we do not mistakenly or deliberately removed items prior to County approvals. I can assure
you that this did not happen in this case as well, and we were instructed during the meeting to remove this riprap. We
have very meticulous notes from this meeting,and we followed them completely with this last submission for approval.
Please let me know if you need anything else from us, but I trust that once Troy confirms to you that this was done at his
request,we can proceed forward with our approvals.
Please feel free to call me directly today if you need to speak to me personally.
Thank you again for the help with the Briarwood project.
Scott Collins, PE
Collins Engineering
434-987-1631 (cell)
From:John Anderson fmailto:ianderson2@albemarle.org]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 12:01 PM
To:Scott Collins
Cc: Nena; Glenn Brooks; Mark Graham;Todd Shifflett;Ana Kilmer; David Benish; Christopher Perez;Troy Austin
Subject:WPO approval delayed -Briarwood
Scott,
I do not understand why a feature that was not topic of discussion Aug-7 (VDOT, Planning, Engineering, Nena, Wendell,
Collins Engineering/COB) and shown on plans left with me that day(site-WPO)would be revised. When the site plan is
distributed for comment next week,we will request this feature be restored.
I am required to review plans submitted Aug-8, plans I took to be identical with Aug-7 plans—that was the point of
meeting,to present final plans. WPO bond estimates are not an issue. WPO review is. WPOs are not approved. When I
wrote Aug-7, I had compared Aug-4 comments against plans left that day. I wrote Aug-7, not Aug-8.
I must review WPOs submitted Aug-8. This cannot happen immediately. We have multiple deadlines. I had planned to
finish this today.
If you sense disappointment, it is worse. If reviews must start over each time—or if trust fails—the process strains to
point of breaking.
Ana,
1
I encountered revisions while preparing last WPO estimate. WPO bond estimates are based on plans left Aug-7, and
presented as final. Plans, in one instance at least, have changed. I stated in writing I would approve WPOs today. I
regret this cannot happen. I must retrieve WPOs from Glenn's office, review for accuracy. I can't say when this will be.
WPO approval is delayed. Thank you-
John E..;nflerson,PE 1 Civil Engineer II
Department of Community Development 1 County of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road j Charlottesville,VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3069
2
John Anderson
From: Mark Graham
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:07 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: Re: var10-12-101227
Hi john, I'm comfortable with you going ahead with their bond once you think they have the issues addressed and just
waiting for others.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:17 AM, "John Anderson" <ianderson2 @albemarle.org>wrote:
Thank you
From: Nena [mailto:ulcwww@ embargmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Glenn Brooks; John Anderson
Subject: Fwd: var10-12-101227
Glenn/John,
Please see below. Is there anyway you can accept this so we can get our WPO permit?
They will not give me a date.They told me yesterday they have sent 1,000 letters and have 4000 to go. If
they go alphabetical,we are on bottom if list.
Would appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Nena Harrell
Count your RAINBOWS not your THUNDERSTORMS
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Moore,Sarah (DEQ)" <Sarah.Moore @dec.virginia.gov>
Date:August 12,2014,8:25:40 AM EDT
To: "ulcwww @embargmail.com" <ulcwww@embargmail.com>
Subject:var10-12-101227
Hi Nena,
Received the check and have all the requirements for the reissue for Briarwood.
Letters will be mailed over the next few weeks.
1
'44ur w•
a
Thank you,
Sarah Moore
VA-DEQ
2
John Anderson
From: Nena [ulcwww @embargmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Glenn Brooks; John Anderson
Subject: Fwd: var10-12-101227
Glenn/John,
Please see below. Is there anyway you can accept this so we can get our WPO permit?
They will not give me a date.They told me yesterday they have sent 1,000 letters and have 4000 to go. If they go
alphabetical,we are on bottom if list.
Would appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Nena Harrell
Count your RAINBOWS not your THUNDERSTORMS
Begin forwarded message:
From:"Moore, Sarah (DEQ)" <Sarah.Moore @deq.virginia.gov>
Date:August 12,2014,8:25:40 AM EDT
To: "ulcwww @embarqmail.com" <ulcwww @embargmail.com>
Subject:var10-12-101227
Hi Nena,
Received the check and have all the requirements for the reissue for Briarwood.
Letters will be mailed over the next few weeks.
Thank you,
Sarah Moore
VA-DEQ
1
w �
John Anderson
From: Graham Murray[graham @collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:52 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: Briarwood SWPPP Exhibit
Attachments: 140806 SWPPP Exhibit.pdf
Good afternoon John,
I want to follow up on your comment regarding the SWPPP. I've attached a revised exhibit that I believe addresses the comments
listed below, but was hoping you could take a look at this to see if you are in agreement.The other remaining items are specific to
the report itself or WPO plan sheets(i.e.the construction entrance detail).
Also, I'd like to confirm that at this time there is only one individual responsible for the reporting, recordkeeping and notification as
questioned in your comment letter.The corrective actions will be the responsibility of Scott at this time.
Thanks,
Graham
-EXHIBIT TO SHOW CONCRETE WASH OUT,PORTA-JOHNS,AND FUELING AREA(7/21/14): Show concrete wash out area(not shown).
Concrete wash out area/s may not drain to storm inlets.Propose treatment for concrete wash waters. [§ 17-404.B.]
-Show on-site dumpster.Provide treatment(or detention)of dumpster drain water.Dumpster runoff may contain contaminants that
may not discharge freely downslope,to a storm inlet,or to any stream.Provide silt fence or earthen berm at ports johns as
containment in event of spill.Furnish impermeable containment,a barrier to infiltration designed to hold the entire volume of stored
fuel in event of spill,with freeboard measure of safety,for each fueling tank shown in the SWPP exhibit.
- 17-404.B.1.a.Wash waters—"Minimize the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing,wheel wash water,and
other wash waters.Wash waters must be treated in a sediment basin or alternative control that provides equivalent or better treatment
prior to discharge."Propose treatment for wash water.
-Construction entrance with wash rack to the north does not drain to a sediment basin;propose treatment.
Graham Murray,P.E.
COLLINS ENGINEERING
www.collins-engineering.com
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Cell: (434) 566-3011
graham a(7collins-enoineerino.com
1
John Anderson
From: Graham Murray[graham @collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Friday,August 01, 2014 8:16 AM
To: John Anderson
Subject: RE: Briarwood WPO plans associated with the Road plan
Good morning John,
Thanks for your e-mail.
The pre-development 2-year and 10-year flows of 2.67cfs and 7.44cfs shown on sheet 3 of the Gas Station plans were not routed
because no detention is available in the pre-development state for subarea 1C.Thus, I do not have the text file you are requesting.
These flows were however obtained by more traditional(simpler)computations. More specifically,the NRCS SCS TR-55 Method(the
graphical peak discharge method)for the 24hour peak storm events.These calculations are shown in the channel adequacy report
under the section entitled`SCS Calculations'. Please also note that these flows were not required to be modified with the latest plan
set and are consistent with the previously shown set of plans and channel adequacy report dated June 96
If you want, I can go into this in more detail in our gam phone conversation.
Thanks,
Graham
From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@albemarle.orq]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:00 PM
To: Graham Murray
Subject: RE: Briarwood WPO plans associated with the Road plan
That's fine, it's clear, no need to reference, but do this for me, please—send .txt for pre-development routing, Gas
station detention system, I want to see the model. Pre-development 2-yr is listed as 2.67cfs, 10-yr as 7.44 cfs (sheet 3).
I want to understand.
Thanks, Graham
From: Graham Murray [mailto:graham(&collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:53 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: Briarwood WPO plans associated with the Road plan
Good afternoon John,
I have revised sheet 3 of the Briarwood WPO plans associated with the Road plan per our conversation this afternoon. I understand
this is not a formal submission,however if further revisions are required to address your concerns please let me know.Should you
feel inclined to reference this document in your review letter being distributed next week that's fine too.
Thanks,
Graham
Graham Murray.P.E.
COLLINS ENGINEERING
www.collins-engineering.com
200 Garrett Street, Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902
1
Glenn Brooks
From: Glenn Brooks
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:07 AM
To: 'Adam Long'; 'Nena Harrell'; Scott Collins
Cc: John Anderson; Max Greene
Subject: WPO201300072, Briarwood, Commercial Lots
We have received your VSMP application for Briarwood Commercial Lots,WP0201300072. This application does not
appear complete. A copy of the SWPPP and Pollution Prevention Plan was not found.
Your registration statement indicates you have an existing general permit and number with DEQ. In this case,you would
need to submit directly to DEQ for a continuation of that permit(VA10-12-101227). This appears to be the same permit
number you used for WP0201400030 and 59. It is not clear how the SWPPP document will incorporate multiple E&S
and SWM plans, or if the proper fees have been paid for each application.
Your application has been checked for completeness per section 17-409 of the County Code. All items must be
received and correct for the application to be deemed complete.
Glenn Brooks,P.E.
County Engineer
Albemarle County
COLLINS 200 GAR ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.corn
July 22,2014
John Anderson
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: Briarwood Commercial Road Plan (SUB201400066&WP0201300072)
Thank you for your comments dated July 15,2014 on the above-referenced project. The updated plans
reflect changes to address your comments as described below:
A.Road Plan
1. Design ADTs and pavement design updated. See chart and exhibit on Sheet 6.
2. Comment addressed.
3. Comment addressed.
4. Comment addressed.
5. Waiver on PC Consent Agenda,July 29th, 2014.
6. Handrail/fence post detail revised. Wall section views D-I updated.
7. Wall design to be provided separately.
8. Handrail provided on all walls,see Sheet 5.
9. Comment addressed.
10. Comment addressed.
11. Comment addressed.
12. Comment addressed.
13. Comment addressed.
14. Comment addressed.
15. Comment addressed.
16. Comment addressed. LCj
17. Comment addressed. 1 I
18. Comment addressed.
19. Updated storm drainage calculations shown on Sheet 14. --�- 7
20. Comment addressed. h '�
21. Acknowledged. ?
22. Acknowledged.
23. Curve radius at NE corner of Road A& Road B intersection updated to 30'.
24. Stationing provided for Briarwood Drive. Dimensioning of pavement expansion shown on Sheet 3
along with a note detailing positive drainage to the proposed gutter line from the edge of the
existing pavement. During a phone conversation between Mr. Long of Collins Engineering and Mr.
Anderson of Albemarle County on July 17th, it was determined that a vertical design and related
profile of Briarwood Drive would not be necessary. Instead, notes were added to Sheet 3 detailing
the expansion of Briarwood Drive at a positive slope towards the proposed gutter line. In additio
drainage areas and entrance flow patterns have been added to Sheet 10.
25. Additional drainage inlet provided in the median at the entrance to Briarwood Drive to - . ure
excess runoff. Entrance flow patterns and updated drainage areas shown o s _;;- s.
26. Storm sew r updated. Structure EX-38 will be replaced with ate"- . e top an. Structure EX-37 will
need to b: relocated,as shown on Sheet 4.
(
(..„,
i
,� = � r�r
Name"' woo
27. Wall map added to Sheet 5 showing location and stationing of wall cross-sections.
28. Albemarle County's General Construction Notes for Streets added to Sheet 6.
29. Notes added to Sheet 5.
30. Comment acknowledged.
B. Stormwater Management Plan
1. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
2. During a phone conversation between Mr. Murray of Collins Engineering and Mr.Anderson of
Albemarle County on July 16th,and a later e-mail that same day,it was determined the additional
inlets required along Briarwood Drive at its intersection with route 29 could connect with the
previously shown pipe/culvert labeled structure 23 and could outfall into the existing roadside ditch
provided drainage continues west to east beneath route 29 via the existing 24" pipe.The road plans
have consequently been revised to address this comment. The addition of these inlets does not
affect the SWM plan since the overall drainage divides are not altered, but rather it affects the road
plan.As such,this is more of a road plan comment that requires resolution and not a SWM comment
and the applicant cordially requests this no longer be a comment required for SWM approval.
3. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
4. 'Comment withdrawn,'as indicated in review letter.
5. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
6. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
7. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
8. 'Comment withdrawn,'as indicated in review letter.
9. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
10. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
11. 'Comment withdrawn,'as indicated in review letter.
12. 'Comment addressed,'as indicated in review letter.
13. Sheet 3's pre-development plan has been updated and no longer shows the proposed extended
detention facility.
14. Please let this letter,and the revised sheet 3 notations, confirm that the"schematic of future
development(not associated with this set of plans)"shown is for informational purposes only and
separate plans will need to be submitted to the County for review and approval for construction in
this area. Furthermore, per the July 16th conversation referenced above and a follow up e-mail
summarizing this conversation on July 16th, it was confirmed a future credit of 29,500sf of future
impervious area credit could be achieved with this set of plans. With the addition of this note to
sheet 3,it was determined this would resolve this comment.
15. The plan shown on sheet 4 entitled 'Extended Detention SWM Facility#3 Detail' has been updated
and now labels the lengths and widths of the facility's forebay and main basin floor, hereby
addressing this comment.
C. Erosion&Sediment Control Plan
1. Sediment trap added to plans to account for runoff from proposed walls, diversion dike and wall
grading operations. Diversion dike along Rt. 29 modified to outfall into Sediment Trap#1's stone
weir outfall for runoff dissipation before entering the existing culvert drainage structure.
2. Comment addressed.
3. Safety fence provided along the south edge of Briarwood Drive.
4. Comment addressed.
5. Comment withdrawn.
6. With the addition of Sediment Trap#2 into the Phase I E&S plan,all of the upstream disturbance areas for
the installation of Walls 1,2&3 have a downstream control via Sediment Basin#2,Sediment Trap#1&
Sediment Trap#2. Sediment Basin#1 shall serve as the perimeter control for the north side of Briarwood
Drive during Phase I. Notes have been added to the Phase I&II E&S plans stating that Sediment Basin#1
must remain in place until all upslope areas are stabilized and the Briarwood Drive expansion is complete.
In addition,the ESC measures shown for the installation of the underground detention center
(WPO201400030)have been transferred to these plans. Sediment Trap#3 will be installed between the
underground detention system and Route 29 as shown on the Phase II E&S plan.
7. Comment addressed.
8. Note added to Sheet 6.
9. See E&S comment response#6. E&S narrative and sequence of construction has been updated to ensure
sediment-laden run-off does not reach Briarwood Drive or off-site receiving streams or entering 3-line
amended underground detention system during all phases of grading.
10. E&S profiles revised.
11. Channel adequacy report updated.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 434-293-3719.
Sincerely,
Scott Collins, PE
Collins Engineering
John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:42 PM
To: 'Graham Murray'
Cc: Glenn Brooks; Michelle Roberge
Subject: RE: Briarwood SWM Comments- Summary of phone conversation
blue text, below—thank you, Graham
From: Graham Murray [mailto:graham@collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:18 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: Briarwood SWM Comments- Summary of phone conversation
Good afternoon John,
I wanted to follow up our phone conversation this afternoon with an e-mail summarizing our determinations. If I'm errant in this
account, please let me know.
Thanks again for your assistance with this project and fielding my phone call.
Graham
SWM comments for Road Plan (WPO 201300072)
2. It was determined inlets would be needed along Briarwood Drive near the intersection of route 29. It was also determined these
inlets would need to be connected to the currently proposed pipe/culvert#23 and would outfall into the existing roadside ditch,
presumably because the currently proposed storm sewer and underground detention system in this vicinity is upland of the
intersection and it's not practical to direct the runoff uphill via a gravity storm sewer. DESIGN:STR 24, INV-OUT=404.25';STR 37A,
INV OUT(TO UNDERGROUND DETENTION)=404.90'. It is acceptable to outfall this discharge into the existing roadside ditch
provided existing contours(which, 7-7-14,did not match existing contours on plans)are graded to allow runoff reaching this point
(INV-OUT of new 134.23'-24" DIA pipe beneath Briarwood Dr)to pass west-to-east beneath U.S. 29 via existing 24" pipe(cross-
section 1,Channel Adequacy report).
14. It was determined that adding a note describing this area as a schematic future development not associated with this set of plans
would resolve this comment. It was also determined a future credit of impervious area could be achieved with the approval of this
plan for this area,though separate submissions would be required for construction.Please note, on the phone I stated the future
impervious area accounted for in the SWM design was 29,500sf, however I recalled this incorrectly and the previously submitted
plans under review(WPO 201400030)account for 30,000sf of future development. I believe the UG system will be sized to accept
runoff from an additional 29,500 sf(future development).
SWM comments for Gas Station (WP0201400059)
1&7: It was determined the applicant needs to provide an approved VPDES general permit from DEQ dated prior to July 15Y, 2014 to
utilize the pre-July 2014 regulations and that new VSMP applications and fees would not trigger the need to utilize post July 15t
regulations. With copy of permit,we'll know more—it's my hope to continue to apply technical review criteria that governed prior
to Jul-1.
SWM comments for Underground Detention System (WP0201400030)
4&5: It was determined these comments could be resolved by mandating the contractor install substantial channel armoring via
riprap on the plans.Such proposed riprap armoring would extend from the upstream outlet of the existing 24"CMP and 18"
concrete culverts to the limits of the eastern VDOT right-of-way near the stream.Calculations showing the new riprap lined
channels,which will likely be trapezoidal,will need to be updated for cross sections#1 and#3 and cross sections of the proposed
channels will need to be provided. please ref email, 7/16/2014 3:13 PM,JA to GM—please let me know if you have any questions.
Graham Murray,P.E.
COLLINS ENGINEERING
www.collins-engineering.com
1
Glenn Brooks
From: Glenn Brooks
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 8:51 AM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: John Anderson
Subject: Briarwood plans
Scott,
I am in receipt of two plan applications without proper signatures on the application;
WPO201400059 Briarwood Commercial Lots
WPO201300072 Briarwood Commercial Road Plan
These will be held pending completion of the application.
Glenn Brooks,P.E.
County Engineer
Albemarle County
1
COLLINS Now"` 20e„ (RRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.com
June 11,2014
John Anderson
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: Briarwood Commercial Road Plan (SUB201400066)
Thank you for your comments dated May 19, 2014 on the above-referenced project. The updated plans
reflect changes to address your comments as described below:
1. Approved traffic study attached to this plan submittal.
2. Entrances along Road A removed from this set of plans.
3. Existing grading easement allows for disturbance 10'into the existing lot. No lot disturbance occurs
outside of this area.
4. Townhouse grading approved under SDP-2010-84 and is an existing condition for this road plan.
Proposed grading ties into the approved grading as shown on Sheet 4.
5. Variance filed with Albemarle County to allow for 3' planting strips to match the existing 3'planting strips
in the existing Briarwood subdivision.
6. Retaining wall cross-sections provided on Sheet 5. Geo-technical engineering details will be provided
separately.
7. Notes 1 and 2 removed from Sheet 5.
8. Handrails provided,detail shown on Sheet 5.
9. Albemarle County managed slopes shown on the Sheet 4. Maximum wall height of 6' has been
maintained in these areas.
10. Road curves revised to R=200'.
11. Street sign provided at the NW corner of intersection of Briarwood Drive and Elm Tree Court.
12. Island curb radii must remain at R=2'where island width is 4'.
13. 40' landing with S<4%provided on Road B at the intersection with Road A.
14. Turn-around detail shown on Sheet 3.
15. All references to"Road C" updated to"Elm Tree Court".
16. Underground detention label on Sheet 8 revised to"WPO-2014-30"
17. Details enlarged.
18. Details enlarged.
19. Drainage area for Str-8 has been updated. Capacity-spread calculations revised.
20. Str-24 top lowered to accommodate drainage.
21. Comment acknowledged.
22. Comment acknowledged.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 434-293-3719.
Sincerely,
Scott Collins, PE
Collins Engineering
COLLINS t. i 200 GAIMIIILFT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.com
John Anderson, P.E.
Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: Briarwood Commercial Road Plan WPO (WPO 201300072)
Thank you for your comments on the project referenced above. Please let this letter supplement the
revised plans in response to your comments dated May 22nd, 2014.
B. Stormwater Management Plan
1. The water quality calculations have been revised and now only show 1.5% pre-development
imperviousness. Please note the only'true' impervious areas shown are what were shown
previously, and this number has not changed. What did change however was the removal of the
'impervious' area under the subtitle actively-grazed pasture&yards.With the removal of this
'impervious' area and the same previously accepted 'true' impervious area the net result was a
pre-development impervious area of 1.5%, which is consistent with the reviewer's initial range
of 1-2%. Please also note this pre-development revision does not affect the post development
impervious ratio, nor does it affect the overall removal rate efficiency required since the County
minimum pre-defined impervious area for pre-developed watersheds in growth areas is 20%.
2. The plans have been revised to propose Filterra inlets with a removal rate efficiency of 74%
along the access road herby addressing this comment. Please see the stormwater management
narratives on sheet 3 of this plan and sheet 3 of the underground detention system plan for
additional information.
3. The contours referenced in this comment are approved contours from a separate set of plans.
This area is currently under construction and is under an existing permit. Because the County
has the authority to mandate these areas be developed as shown on the approved plans, and
because approved swales and storm sewer are situated between the two developments,
displaying these approved grades in the pre-development scenarios associated with this plan is
acceptable.This was agreed upon during a meeting between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Murray of
Collins Engineering on May 29th, 2014.
4. The plans have been revised and no longer show this feature in the pre-development state.
5. The stormwater management plans have been updated at the request of the reviewer such that
the watersheds are consistent with the drainage divides previously shown on the drainage
analysis page of the road plan. All stormwater management calculations have been updated
accordingly. Also at the request of the reviewer,the drainage area#1A designation was
removed and this area was absorbed into drainage area#1C.This reallocation of acreage was
determined an acceptable method for resolution of this comment during a phone conversation
between Mr. Murray and Mr. Anderson on May 29th, 2014. During this conversation it was also
confirmed pre-development drainage areas 1A and 1C would be compared to post-development
drainage areas 1A and 1C for detention compliance,which in effect ensures all areas are
account for between pre-and post-development scenarios.
6. At the request of the reviewer,the plans have been revised to address this comment and now
show the diameter and length of the proposed and existing culverts beneath Briarwood Drive at
its intersection with Route 29. Please see sheet 3 for evidence of this.
7. Sheet 4 has been updated such that the stormwater management details have been
consolidated into one detail that is at a scale of 1"=5'vertically and 1"=50' horizontally.This
detail now correctly displays the simulated peak water surface elevations for the 2-, 10-and
100-year storm events.
8. During the May 29th meeting with County Engineering referenced above, Mr. Brooks informed
Mr. Murray that an anti-vortex device would not be required but a trash rack would be.
Consequently, sheet 4 of the plans has been revised to include a trash rack.
9. Many of the discrepancies noted in this comment stem from the previous exclusion of the
'impervious'areas under the subtitle actively-grazed pasture &yards, as note in comment
response number one.The revised plans submitted now take these areas into consideration and
have been updated throughout for uniformity.
10. Sheet 4 has been updated such that the stormwater management details have been
consolidated into one detail that is at a scale of 1"=5'vertically and 1"=50' horizontally.The
remaining details that are not to scale are details provided by government agencies and are part
of design manuals.
11. This comment has been addressed with the erosion and sediment control plan submittal.
12. The plans have been updated to address this comment, please see sheet 3's watershed
summary for evidence of this.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed plans please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
'r✓ vin►
• Michelle Roberge
From: Christopher Perez
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:06 PM
To: Scott Collins
Cc: Michelle Roberge; Margaret Maliszewski; Troy Austin
Subject: Briarwood subdivision plats, site plans, site plan amendments, and ARB application
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
As requested this email shall serve as an update for Briarwood subdivision plats, site plans, site plan
amendments, and ARB application, which are under review/pending resubmittal. It appears the applicant is
actively moving forward with the plans through discussions and submitals of revised TIA and ARB
applications; however, due to the complexity of the various overlapping items many incremental approvals and
reviews must be accomplished by various departments prior to resubmittal and or approval of the mitigation
plan.
* SDP2013-35 minor site plan amendment_Landscape Mitigation Plan
1St round of comments sent on 7-3-13, staff has not received a resubmittal from the applicant. The applicant
made an ARB application ARB-2013-174, ARB approval is one of the requirements to move forward with the
proposal. Subsequently the applicant submitted ARB2014-40, which goes to the ARB on May 5th. Thus it
appears this mitigation plan(minor amendment)proposal should take into consideration the ARB findings on
May 5th and the mitigation plan may need to be revised to match (if it doesn't already match) what ARB
reviews/approves.
A second submittal of the minor amendment has not been submitted by the applicant to address the 7-3-13
comments.
This minor amendment/mitigation plan will be utilized to process the Special Exception request for the 20'
buffer disturbance per Chapter 18 Section 21.7(c)1. The Special Exception for the"20' buffer disturbance
waiver" is still applicable. This will be require to go to the BOS.
Please note that the Special Exception for the Critical Slope Waiver associated with the Gas Station Site plan is
no longer applicable, as the ordinance recently changed (on March 5, 2014) how the County handles these
slopes. The slopes onsite are now categorized as "Managed Slopes" a waiver is not required to disturb them;
however, the improvements proposed on these slopes must meet design standards provided in 30.7.5 to mitigate
the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. Engineering is your primary contact for this aspect of the
initial site plan.
* ARB-2013-174: Briarwood Commercial. and then * ARB2014-40: Briarwood Commercial. This
submittal goes to ARB May 5,2014.
* WP02013-18_the briarwood underground detention project.
Approved on 8-20-13.
* SDP2013-34 minor site piar, amendment_modify lot numbers and parking spaces
1S1 round of comments se 2: or. ` __. A second submitta: of the minor amer1dm ere: _' um been submitted by
the applican: to a:lcress tons . `,'1.. __:.s.
t
i
*SDP2012-64 Preliminary Sitean—Briarwood Gas Station
Comments were provided to the applicant on 7-19-13. Based on the complexity and overlapping nature of the
project staff is awaiting revisions prior to approval or approval with conditions.Notably staff is awaiting
revisions to the mitigation plan SDP2013-35 to be approved prior to this plan being approved.
Please note that the Special Exception for the Critical Slope Waiver associated with the Gas Station Site plan
(comment#2 on the 7-19-13 comment letter) is no longer applicable, as the ordinance recently changed (on
March 5, 2014) how the County handles these slopes. The slopes onsite are now categorized as "Managed
Slopes" a waiver is not required to disturb them; however,the improvements proposed on these slopes must
meet design standards provided in 30.7.5 to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. It may
be possible for the applicant to consult with Engineering staff prior to resubmittal to assure design standards are
being met with the proposal. Or Engineering may require the applicant to resubmit and then will review to
assure the design standards are met.
The minor amendment/mitigation plan shall be approved prior to the approval of the preliminary site plan.
*SUB2013-43 Briarwood Commercial Lot—preliminary subdivision plat for 5 commercial lots
2 rounds of review have went out on this project (4-17-13 and 7-19-13). A resubmittal has not been submitted
addressing the comments. In addition to many other comments remaining, staff is awaiting approvals of the
revised traffic analysis requested by VDOT and Engineering to determine if the road is adequate to carry traffic
volume.
*SUB2013-29 Briarwood—Final plat_Request for final plat approval to create 31 residential lots ... Lots
14-22 (phase lA-1,Lots 15-23A (phase 1A-2), lots 43 —47 (phase 5). 2 rounds of review have went out on this
project (4-3-13 and 7-19-13). Pending action by the applicant with regard to legal documents.
Christopher P.Perez I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICounty of Albemarle,Virginia
401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville.VA 22902
434.296.5832 ext.3443
From: Scott Collins [mailto:scoff @collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:20 AM
To:Troy Austin
Cc: Christopher Perez; Michelle Roberge
Subject: RE: 13-338 Briarwood Commercial - Revised Traffic Study
Troy-
Thanks for the email. There are actually(2) current plans under review at the county both pending approval (or
approval to move forward) based on the approval of the TIA traffic study for the intersection. The (2) projects are:
SUB2013-00043 Briarwood Commercial Lots—Preliminary Subdivision plat
SDP2012-00064 Briarwood Gas Station—Preliminary Plat
I have copied the planner, Chris Perez, on this email as well, since he will be tracking the approval of the TIA study and
ultimately the approval of the (2) preliminary plats so we can move forward with the final plans and road plans for these
projects.
Thank you.
Scott Collins
From: Austir. '.. .°'c .. ' ':(T) 1mailtc:Natnrilr,. AuStinnavdot.vrT.,:n; ---
Sent:Thurso i■ :7, 2014 7:4E AM
To:Scott Collins
Subject: RE: 13-338 Briarwood Commercial- Revised Traffic Study
Scott,
Is there a current site plan under review for this site or are you just wanting to get the TIA out of the way before
submitting?
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Land Development—South
Culpeper District
P.O. Box 1017
Troy,VA 22974
Phone: (434) 589-5871
Fax: (434) 589-3967
From: Scott Collins [mailto:scott @collins-engineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:24 PM
To: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)
Cc: Proctor, Charles C. (VDOT); Michelle Roberge
Subject: RE: 13-338 Briarwood Commercial - Revised Traffic Study
Troy-
Attached is the revised conclusion, changing the summary about the number of lanes to match the section, as
requested. This is the only change.
Thanks, and let me know when you think this will be approved.
Thx.
Scott
From:Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) (mailto:Nathran.Austin(a)vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent:Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:33 AM
To:Scott Collins
Subject: RE: 13-338 Briarwood Commercial- Revised Traffic Study
Scott,
I notice that in section 7.0 Summary and Conclusion, paragraph three references a "5 to 6 lane section on Briarwood
Drive". This should be revised to match the 7 lane section that is currently being proposed.
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Land Development—South
Culpeper District
P.O. Box 1017
Troy, VA 22974
Phone: (434) 589-5872
Fax: (434; 589-3967
From: Sco- �.ii^: _ :ilr..:sco tc8�collin� enane °�
Sent: VVeu-fe_:.-,?‘ 2Ci' 8:49 AM
To Michelle Roberge; Austin, Nathlrn. (VDOT); Proctor, Charles C. (VDOT)
' Cc: Christopher Perez
Subject: 13-338 Briarwood Commercial - Revised Traffic Study
Michelle,Troy, Chuck-
Thank you again for meeting with us last week to discuss the Briarwood Commercial intersection and Briarwood drive. I
am dropping off(3) hard copies of the final traffic study (with the couple of changes that Chuck spoke about in the
meeting last week), but I also wanted to email it out to everyone so that everyone would have a digital copy of it as
well. Thank you again for the help with this, and please let us know if you need anything else.
Thank you.
Scott Collins
Collins Engineering
434-293-3719