Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400004 Correspondence 2014-02-03 ■mot SKETCH SHOWING 1" = 500' VSMP PERMIT VAR100043 PROJECT AREA WITH iii WPO REFERENCES 4 OLD TRAIL VILLAGE ZMATrornits ' = SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 PROJECT AREA IS 86.5 ACRES AND INCLUDES BLOCKS AT OLD TRAIL VILLAGE i CURRENTLY COVERED BY APPROVED WPO PLANS THAT HAVE BOTH EROSION CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY MEASURES. z U . Pond >,,,"'"''>,>ga og 0 Old Trail ; %,..)%0 LL`kaaa ZMA Limits 1 . ,o7r 5„ . , t 7t VSMP Limits Permit a N •'.i n JJ''';»»>,.,� VAR100043 iu' a BLOCKS 6.7.26. 4 a 27,28,29&35 a • »� Limits Of To UB Pond • a :.... —VSMP Permit WP0201300027 WP0201400004 I �b � BLOCKS 13A AND 138 VAR100043 • o 9, • BASIN AREA a NN c 0 a WP0201000036 :>±""-, -• WP0201100035 ssss4 ss a 4 0 s ssss ` asss s s aaea< " d : BLOCK 139 sshssss < esaa«aaaa< �ssssaa<aaaaa a ' O r► , STOCKPILE AREA 1 WPO201200045 w I,n , BLOCKS 11 AND 14 `r. BASIN AREA s A WP0201200013 .. WP0201300021 az w <a'aa<aa``<<aa<< 1 a ______../r. Ssss Limits Of r. sss<e««« s aay VSMP Permit VAR 100043 ��` �aaaaaa«<<a` Old Trail ZMA Limits Old Trail ZMA Limits 7 ■ US ROUTE 250 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:24 PM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Cc: Glenn Brooks; Dave Brockman Subject: RE: OTV blocks 28-29B-SWPPP-Area of Development/Disturbed Area I agree From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter @roudabush.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:22 PM To: John Anderson Cc: Glenn Brooks; Dave Brockman Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area If revisions/additions/deletions are required, we can address them as we move forward. Thanks BL Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:21 PM To: Bill Ledbetter Cc: Glenn Brooks; Dave Brockman Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area This is excellent—it's what we had in mind. I can't double-check this minute, but it seems a reliable record. It is certainly enough for now. Thank you very much. From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetterCa>roudabush.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:17 PM To: John Anderson Cc: Glenn Brooks; Dave Brockman Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area John I have taken a shot a labeling all applicable WPO references that I am aware of to the exhibit. Take a look at it and let me know if it was what you had in mind. Bill 1 Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2Caalbemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:59 PM To: Bill Ledbetter Cc: Glenn Brooks; Dave Brockman Subject: RE: OTV blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area Bill, I understand—what I had in mind is to keep the sketch near at hand, and if certain, list WPOs—WP0201400004(blocks 6, 7, 26,27, 28, 29, 35),WP0201300052 (1B, 3C),WP0201300021 (11, 14),for example. Could you do that for us? It's time-intensive, but bit by bit, linking blocks-WPOs may help us understand OTV perspective. Shared understanding without misunderstanding is the goal. I appreciate your help very much. From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter(aroudabush.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:45 PM To: John Anderson Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area Thanks John. I will need help from you guys to assign the WPO numbers to some of the areas. There are multiple approved plans and WPO numbers for some of these areas. I would like to make sure we are referencing the correct ones so that we are all on the same page. Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2Cthalbemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:05 PM To: Bill Ledbetter; Ana Kilmer Cc: Glenn Brooks; Michelle Roberge; Max Greene; Dave Brockman; Todd Shifflett Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area Dyslexia—86.54 Ac. 2 From: John Anderson Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 12:03 PM To: 'Bill Ledbetter; Ana Kilmer Cc: Glenn Brooks; Michelle Roberge; Max Greene; Dave Brockman; Todd Shifflett Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area Ana, Please move forward with the WPO bond posting for blocks 28/29B. Todd, We need to revise AREA of coverage data for VAR100043—it'll be a first, I realize. Bill, The map is clear,sufficient to meet VSMP application review needs. We will work with VDEQ to revise total land area of development and estimated area to be disturbed,which will be reported as 85.64 Ac. (nearest hundredth). Later,as time permits, it would be helpful if ON assigns WPO approvals (that you feel apply), perhaps when sketch is revised to include future development(blocks 12/15). Thanks for your patience- John 434.296-5832—ext. 3069 From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter @ roudabush.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 11:49 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Glenn Brooks; Michelle Roberge; Max Greene; Dave Brockman Subject: RE: ON blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area John Attached is the revised Permit Coverage Sketch showing total land disturbance area at Old Trail Village. I have included all areas that are covered by SWM/WPO plans for both erosion control and water quality. This acreage is 86.5 acres. Please revise the registration statement to reflect this acreage. Please let me know if this is sufficient for what you need to move forward with the WPO bond posting for Blocks 28/29B. Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@ albemarle.orq] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:56 AM To: Bill Ledbetter 3 Cc: Glenn Brooks; Michelle Roberge; Max Greene; Dave Brockman Subject: OTV blocks 28-29B -SWPPP -Area of Development/Disturbed Area Bill, Thanks for speaking with me this morning. We understand you are working to revise sketch of OTV that will accompany response to block 28-29B VSMP: SWPPP comments, 26-Aug-14. The revised sketch will show areas/blocks at ON currently covered by SWM plans. This sketch may revise VPDES registration statement acreage listed as 91.71 for total land area of development and estimated area to be disturbed. This acreage may decrease, but will increase with future development. When submitting sketch with revised values for area to be developed or disturbed,the General VPDES permit provides guidance at Part II, I.,4.— General Permit No.: VAR 1 Q Page 17 of 21 4. Where the operater becomes aware of a failure to submit any relevant facts.or submittal of incorrect information in any report,including a registration statement, to the department or the VSMP authority, the operator shall promptly submit such facts or correct information. Please don't be upset by reference to failure or incorrect;this section gives direction, appears to indicate that sharing new registration information is sufficient notification (no forms/fees). We will work with DEQ as necessary to revise values in its database. It is important to note that revised acreage values should cover blocks 28,29B, 6,7,26, 27, 35B, 1B, 3C (these areas will route to Upper Ballard Pond),and any other blocks covered by approved SWM plans. Please,for now,exclude blocks 12 and 15. When we receive revised sketch with request to revise registration statement values,we will be able to format WPO bonds for blocks 28 and 29B. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you- John E.Anderson,PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 4 June 9, 2014 Mr. Jonathan Newberry, Planner County of Albemarle Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Rd,NW Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SDP201400009 Old Trail Blocks 28,29B—Final Site Plan Dear Mr.Newberry, I have reviewed and addressed your comments. The individual responses to those comments are below. Planning 1. On Sheet 1,please change the subtitle from"Site & Subdivision Plan"to "Final Site Plan". Title on Cover Sheet revised. In addition, plans have been split into a WPO, A Road Plan and a Site Plan. 2. On Sheet 1, under General Notes, please remove the note regarding development rights. Revised accordingly. 3. On Sheet 1,please list the setbacks for each block. Setback Table and Area Summaries have been provided. 4. On Sheet 1, please provide the density and area summaries for each block. Setback Table and Area Summaries have been provided. 5. [Code of Development] Please submit a variation for a reduction in setbacks where applicable. Variation request submitted under separate cover. 6. [General Comment] Upon resubmittal, please reflect the combination of Lot 13 in Block 29B with Lot 1 in Block 29A as reviewed under application number SUB201400032. OK. 7. [14-233, 14-234/General Comment] The current configuration of Private Street `A' does not show planting strips or sidewalks,nor does it have private street approval. Please submit a private street authorization request with waivers for planting strips and sidewalks. This is consistent with the process for private streets in Block 14. Private Street Authorization request submitted under separate cover. 8. [32.6.2(i)] Parking and loading areas. Please show details for any desired on-street parking. On Sheet 1,please provide a parking schedule. A parking schedule has been added to the cover sheet. 9. [32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. If any outdoor lighting above 3,000 lumens is proposed, please submit a photometric plan and show the location of each luminaire. If none is proposed, then please add a note on Sheet 1 that states "There will be no outdoor lighting above 3,000 lumens". Noted. 10. [32.7.9.8] Tree Canopy. On Sheet 25, please display the canopy (in sq. ft.) for each type of plant to confirm the amount of canopy proposed meets the canopy requirement. Noted. E911 1. The applicant should submit three (3)road name requests for each of the following: "Private Street A", "Road M", "Road L", and "Private Alley A, B, C" before approval is given. Noted. Engineering 1. Site plan: a. Please update the topography to within one year of submittal date. The topography should at least be field verified and stated on the plan with a date of verification. [14- 302, 18-32.5.2,policy] Topography is accurate at the time of plan submittal. Noted accordingly. b. Lot#20 driveways is shown across "Open Space" and appears to have adequate room on the lot for the driveway. Recommend moving driveway off"Open Space" lot. Client driven location for driveway. c. Storm drain pipes are missing from sheet 5 of 26. Site Plan shows above ground features only. See Grading& Utility Plan for u/g Utilities. d. Please provide a bench mark location, elevation and datum for topography. [policy] Added accordingly. e. Proposed grading has a mix of contour intervals making the topography difficult to decipher. Please pick either the l' contour or the 2' contour for consistency. Contours revised to reflect 2' intervals. f. Please make sure match lines are correct and page numbers are accurate. Match-line & sheet references revised to reflect the plans set changes. g. Please show all buffer limits on plans. WPO buffers added to the plan sheets. h. Buffer disturbance will need a mitigation plan. Except for the perpendicular storm sewer outfall pipe,we have avoided the buffer impacts at this time. i. Please show critical slopes on the plans. [18-4.2, 14-304] There are no critical slopes located within the development area. j. Please show the easements on the plan and check the depth to easement width for excavation limits. [18-32.6.2.g] See table on Sheet 14. k. Please show sight distance lines on landscape plan to verify unobstructed sight easements. Trees may need to be moved out of lines of sight. Added. 1. Please show road name and traffic sign locations on the plans. Signage added. m. Please change the line weight for existing pipes so they will not be counted as proposed. Existing shown as dashed/lighter to distinguish existing from proposed. 2. Drainage and road: a. Please show the Stormwater drainage easements on the site plan. [Code Sec. 18- 32.5.2, 18-32.6.2.d]. Existing & proposed easements are shown on the site plan. b. Future storm drainage systems shall have an outlet to prevent them filling with water over time. [structure 144] Noted for inlets to be watertight until future storm sewer construction. c. Please show VDOT designations for entrances on the plan. Duplex Entrance location shown. d. VDOT approval is required for final plan approvals. OK. e. Fire/rescue department approval is required for final plan approvals. OK. f. Alleys will be designed to prevent stormwater flows from entering intersections. Please use the rural street intersection criteria of continuing the -2% cross grade for a minimum 20' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street down the alley to provide a low point off the intersected street for drainage. Profiles now reflect the true CG-11 conditions at the proposed intersections. g. Please show Cross-drain locations on plans at every major cut fill transition or sag with VDOT designations. CD-2 & CD-1 locations added to profile and details provided. h. Please update all standard notes as shown in the ACDSM. Notes updated to the latest version. i. Please check angles of deflections on storm water system. Drainage pipe angles need to be 90 degrees or greater. For example stormwater structures 110 and 117 appear to be less than 90 degrees. Since deflected storm sewer pipes are unacceptable to Albemarle, additional inlets were added to provide separation and provide 90 degree junctions at the inlets. j. Please provide drainage profiles for the entire stormwater system. Independent profiles have been added to include all proposed storm pipes. k. Please show inlet shaping for stormwater manhole junctions to reduce the risk of standing water/breeding areas for mosquitoes. Inlet shaping has been added to all inlets per direction. 1. Pipes with slopes less than 0.5% are too flat and may not be self cleaning. Albemarle County Policy is for all stormwater systems will have a minimum 0.5% slope. The design manual refers to minimum cleaning velocity and not a minimum slope condition. If actual policy dictates 0.50%, then the design manual should be updated to reflect the actual requirements. Pipe Slopes were increased to provide the 0.50% as requested. 3. Stormwater Protection: a. Stormwater management proposal will be addressed by the County Engineer. The WPO plan for Upper Ballard as been designed to provide both water quality and 10 yr Pre-Post detention for the western portion of Old Trail Village, including the addition of the Block 3A & Old Trail Drive drainage. See UB Pond routings. 4. Erosion and Sediment Control: a. Blocks 29A& 35A do not appear to be shown correctly. Please show the existing topography now that grading has occurred on Blocks 29A& 35A. [14-302, 18-32.5.2, policy] Grading has been revised to reflect the current topography. b. Bulk grading plan has a mix of 1' and 2' contour intervals and is inconsistent. Please pick one contour interval to reduce misinterpretation of proposed grading. Contours now depict 2' contours. c. Double row of silt fence do not typically work and are difficult for the contractor to maintain. Please show a sediment trap in the lowest area near the pond. It can be filled in after site stabilization to finished contours shown. The sediment basin, located at the existing low point of this area will prevent any runoff from entering Upper Ballard pond. As such, the implementation of a small fill diversion along the existing WPO buffer will protect the pond from any sediment latent runoff and direct all runoff into the basin until the site becomes stabilized. The super silt fence along Upper Ballyd has been specified w/ chainlink backing. d. Please show temporary/permanent seeding on the "Bulk grading Plan". Seeding will not be required unless project or portions of project will not be completed within the 9 month land disturbance time limit. [Code Sec.17-207.B.2] Seeding, both temporary and proposed is shown on the EC and bulkgrade plans. e. Sediment basin construction details are required. Details of the proposed sediment basin, the actual storage for the sediment basin both before fill operations and after bulkgrading were both shown to provide ample storage per the specifications. f. Sediment traps with diversions that bisect the site do not work in the field and are a burden to both the contractor and inspector to maintain the drainage divisions. Can this side of the project be piped to the sediment basin? r The sediment traps are being provided to isolate the future pad ready areas from running off into proposed Ashlar Avenue. The sediment basin is sized to receive all disturbed areas and runoff. The sediment traps have been included to reduce the burden on the temporary basin, as well as to provide additional storage and volume more close to the area of destabilization. Piping the inlets to the pond would be temporary, costly and subject to change. g. Blocks will need E&SC protection to keep mud off the new road construction. This office recommends a sediment trap behind inlet structure#112 with a pipe into the back of structure#112. The storm sewer will be utilized as temporary conveyance measure for the development area. Cleaning of the storm pipes is noted and will be required prior to acceptance by VDOT. h. Silt fence or earth berm draining to control structures should be placed behind sidewalks to protect the new road and sidewalk areas from sedimentation until the vegetation is established. Silt fence has been added to isolate the lot construction from the roadways. i. Please remove proposed 1' contours or make the whole plan with 1' contours. 1' contours have been removed. j. Please show the stock pile locations on the plan. Potential stockpile area shown k. Please show staging and parking areas for the contractors and other construction related areas. Potential staging areas shown. Fire and Rescue 1. Once the No Parking signs have been approved for the streets less than 36 ft FC/FC Fire Rescue will sign off with No Objections. No parking signs added to alleys. VDOT 1. The sight distance lines appear to originate at 10' from the nearest through lane. This distance needs to be 14.5' and the sight distance and need for sight distance easements need to be evaluated based on the new sight lines. Sight distance shown at 14.5' from ep. 2. If possible,the water service connection for Lot 21 should come from the waterline located on"Private Street A" so that Golf Drive will not need to be open cut. OK. 3. All deflections of the storm sewer need to be at least 90°. It appears that the angles are less than 90° at structures 111-105-112, at structures 100-117-115, and at structures 130-128-126. 4. Rather than running storm sewer from structures 117 to 115, could the storm sewer run from 115 to 100 to the structure near the intersection of Road"M" and Golf View Drive: Proposed road sag condition prevents this solution. 5. Will there be a need to connect the waterline shown on Ashlar Avenue to the proposed 12" dry waterline between Road"L" and the roundabout? If so, this connection should be made during construction of Ashlar Avenue so that the roadway will not need to be open cut in the future. They will not need to be connected within Ashlar Avenue. NW' 6. The intersection connections of the roadways should be built and reflected as vertical curves on the profiles. Profiles and intersection grades have been detailed to reflect the CG-11 or vertical curve conditions. 7. The profile for Golf View Drive should include the elevation and grade for the road extension at station 17+54± as shown in the approved plans for Block 35A. OK. 8. Is Golf View Drive going to be built to station 24+00 as shown on the profile or to station 21+19 as shown on the plan view? End Construction stations and labels added. 9. The station and elevation of Road"L" should be shown on the profile of Golf View Drive. Intersection labels, elevations and stations added for clarity and completeness. 10. The elevation of Ashlar Avenue should be added to the intersection shown on profile for Road"M". Intersection labels, elevations and stations added for clarity and completeness. 11. The public road noted on the profile for Ashlar Avenue should be labeled as Road"L" and the appropriate elevation should be added. 12. It is difficult to distinguish the existing elevations on the profiles, but it appears that CD-1's are required and should be shown on the profiles at the following locations: CD-1 & CD-2 added to the plans set. 13. The storm sewer profiles should be shown on separate profiles. There is currently too much detail on the profiles to accurately compare the information with that in the calculations. In addition, it will be difficult to obtain accurate information from the current profiles to construct the storm sewer. a. Road L—Station 12+58 ± b. Road L— Station 13+55 ± c. Golf View Drive— Station 19+65 ± d. Road M—Station 13+70± e. Road M—Station 16+25 ± f. Ashlar Avenue—Station 14+90± Independent profiles added to simplify their appearance. 14. Final review of the storm sewer calculations is pending the clarification of the storm sewer profiles. OK. 15. The plan view for the streets should clearly identify the on-street parking for Road"L". Based on the proposed section, on-street parking is to be intermittent and 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided on each lot. 16. Pavement design calculations need to be submitted for review. OK. 17. The sight lines should be added to the landscape plan to determine if the proposed street trees will impact the available sight distance at each intersection. Added. PHONE(434)2934251 (434)977-0205 FAX(434)2965220 ROUDABUSH,GALE&ASSOC.,INC. INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM h W c c1 NG APROFESSiONALCORPORATION FvGN '\G 914 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE.VIRGINIA 22902 AN ANN':NG J.THOMAS GALE.LS. WILLIAM S.ROUDABUSH.L.S. MARILYNN R.GALE.LS. WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER.LS EDWARD D.CAMPBELL III.LS. Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County RE: Old Trail Block 28/29 VSMP Application Dear Mr. Brooks, Thank you for your prompt review and response to the VSMP application for Old Trail Block 28/29. I have reviewed your comments and offer the following. A copy of the completed registration form,fee worksheet and payment check that we sent to DEQ is attached. I believe this will satisfy the first three items you had questions on. The current VSMP permit we are working under was issued for 91.7 acres of area within the Old Trail ZMA development area. I am enclosing a sketch showing this area within the overall Old Trail ZMA area. My plan is to modify this permit to cover the entire Old Trail ZMA area with a future plan submittal. With the future modification,we will submit the DEQ paperwork and required fees to ensure continued compliance with regulations. The SWPPP text submitted with the VSMP application is intended to be the controlling document for the entire permitted Old Trail development. Individual erosion control and SWM plans for each Block are referenced in this text and the individual plans for each Block are part of the SWPPP binder located at Old Trail. I have revised the text in the SWPPP to help make this clearer. I have further identified qualified persons responsible for SWPPP inspections and reporting and also had the owner sign the SWPPP as the operator. I am enclosing the Block 28/29 SWPPP/PPP Reference Drawing that identifies the locations of fueling areas, wash out areas and sanitation facilities. A plan following this template, along with ESC and SWP plans, is part of the SWPPP/PPP for each Block at Old Trail. I believe this drawing,along with the ESC and SWM Plans you are currently reviewing satisfies SWPPP and PPP requirements for Block 28/29. I believe your comment concerning the need of a mitigation plan is misdirected. The trap you are noting as being in the stream buffer adjacent to the pond is an existing trap that was constructed with Block 29/35. If we need to prepare a mitigation plan for this trap, I respectfully request that you have us to do this as a modification to the Block 29/35 plans and not as part of this plan review and submission. You are aware of the time constraints the developer is under to begin this project and having to prepare a mitigation plan will cause delay that is less than ideal. There is a WPO bond in place for Block 29/35 that will insure the mitigation plan is prepared. The need for construction record drawings for Upper Ballard Pond is noted. I would like to make it clear that the information shown on the WPO plan reflects asbuilt conditions. We have not only asbuilt the dam and outfall structures of the pond, but we have also done an asbuilt survey of the bottom surface of the pond to insure stated pond topography and volumes are accurate. I propose that this plan be accepted as the construction record drawing for Upper Ballard Pond. I believe the attached information and noted revisions satisfy your comments. I hope my comments concerning the need for the construction record drawing and mitigation plan are sufficient to alleviate your concerns for these items. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Regards, • / ,, William J. Ledbetter, L.S.