Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201300044 Review Comments 2013-10-11Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments AVINITY Friday, October 11, 2013 Glenn Brooks Engineering Erosion and Sediment Control Plan MS-19 report Approved OF A p, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Q Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road \ErciN�" Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 WPO Plan Review Project: l( U; v\ ; tt Number: W p o Zo 1 O Goo 57 Date: ,9 - ( - Zol3 Reviewer: Phone: -'e11 -5-8%40 lo 3Z7 3 This is an abbreviated review comment notice. County engineering staff is available every Thursday afternoon to discuss details of review. To schedule,please call your reviewer for an appointment. Erosion & Sediment Control: - Adequate (Code Chapter 17,Article H) ,,V-Not Adequate Y N State standards followed, and Design Standards Manual notes and details X Adequate limits and perimeter measures out of work areas 7C All stages protected adequately > Adequate channels X i/09 . A474, aA 01/4/i/ Ale117 G�r4ty l Al.#1 Stormwater Management: (Code Chapter 17,Article III) Adequate Not Adequate Y N Enough capture and treatment for on-site areas MIN Enough detention storage for on-site areas Sealed hydrologic and hydraulic computations provided "Nam/ <5/4 is .0.47 /e 7c4 s�'ttic�/ s � �+sr--s-nir ePtr-r Mitigation: (Code Chapter 17,Article III) /u Adeq to � No Adequate Y N Buffers and disturbed areas adequately shown Adequate plantings at 2:1, or other mitigation provided This review attempts to encompass the larger compliance questions. County staff does not assume responsibility for any calculation or plan details, and cannot cover the intricacies of every plan submitted. Each plan and calculation must have a professional seal and signature to assume these responsibilities. This plan is / Approved (please see attached Approval Fact Sheet) v Not Approved Project Name: Date Completed: Reviewer: Department/Division/Agency: Reviews Comments: Review Status: Review Comments AVINITY Tuesday, September 24, 2013 Glenn Brooks Engineering Erosion and Sediment Control Plan This was reviewed as an amendment to WPO201000057. See that folder. See Recommendations Glenn Brooks From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:57 AM To: 'Graham Murray' Subject: RE: Avinity-WP0201000057 Yes, the copy I have is miniaturized. From: Graham Murray [mailto:graham(a collins-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 2:30 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Avinity -WP0201000057 Good afternoon Glenn, Thanks for the update.To make sure I'm interpreting your e-mail correctly,you just need me to resubmit the previously provided calculations(9/30/13)with an original stamp and signature on the initial sheet and then you can approve the plans, is this correct? Thanks, Graham From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBR00KSCaalbemarle.org] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 2:22 PM To: Graham Murray Subject: RE: Avinity -WP0201000057 I am awaiting original documents with original seals. From: Graham Murray [mailto:grahamCacollins-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 9:29 AM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Avinity - WP0201000057 Good morning Glenn, I wanted to check in on the approval status of the plans described below. Can you give me an update on this project when you get a chance? Thanks, Graham From: Graham Murray Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 5:04 PM To: 'Glenn Brooks' Subject: RE: Avinity - WP0201000057 Good afternoon Glenn, I updated the sealed channel adequacy analysis per the amendment and it was dropped off at the front desk a few minutes ago. Thanks again for your help getting this plan approved. Graham 1 From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS©albemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:54 AM To: Graham Murray Subject: RE: Avinity-WP0201000057 Please update your adequate channel analysis for the new plan and basin and make it part of your sealed comp package. I can't use the old one when the stormwater plan has changed so dramaticly. Thanks. From: Graham Murray [mailto:grahamC @collins-engineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:43 PM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: FW: Avinity - WP0201000057 Good afternoon Glenn, Thank you for your favorable review on Avinity's WPO amendment. In response to your e-mail this afternoon I will attempt to resolve your last remaining items. 1. I am forwarding you an e-mail from the originally approved Avinity plan showing prior acceptance/adequacy of the downstream channel. ESC comment#12 F(Rev.2)documents how channel adequacy was previously addressed and directly discusses this item. Please note the offsite temporary construction easement described in the comment letter is located on the now-owned property of the developer. 2. I have attached the previously submitted calculations,only now they can contain my seal. If you have any other questions please feel free to call or e-mail me.Also,if you need additional copies for signatures please let me know. Thanks, Graham From: John Paul Diez [mailto:idiez(&albemarle.orq] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:20 PM To: Graham Murray Subject: Avinity -WP0201000057 Graham, Attached are the updated comments letters for the SWM and E&S plans. Everything looks fine.The only item left is to obtain a temporary construction easement for the work being done offsite for the riprap. Please do not hesitate to contact should you have any questions. Thanks, John Diez Engineering Technician Dept. of Community Development (434) 296-5832 Ext. 3025 2 Glenn Brooks From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:28 AM To: 'Graham Murray' Subject: RE: Avinity pond We have a time at 3pm-3:30 today From: Graham Murray [mailto:graham @collins-engineering.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:44 AM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Avinity pond Importance: High Glenn, Can I schedule a meeting with you,or Engineering,this afternoon to discuss this?Earlier time slots are better for me, but I'm flexible. Thanks, Graham From: Graham Murray Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:10 PM To: 'Glenn Brooks' Subject: RE: Avinity pond Glenn, Thank you for your response, I'd like to discuss a few of the items in more detail though. Please see below. Thanks, Graham From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS @albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 4:47 PM To: Graham Murray Cc: Michael Koslow; Michelle Roberge; Max Greene Subject: FW: Avinity pond Graham, I had some time to go over this with Michael and Max. Here is my take. - There is not enough aquatic bench. There needs to be a certain volume of plants as a ratio to the water quality volume. A good guide for us is the recommended surface areas in table 3.06-2. 15%surface at 0-1.5', 15%at 1.5-2'. I will try to come up with more aquatic bench/volumes - 2:1 slopes into a pond is typically not safe for pedestrians, and a safety shelf area is needed,which ties into the wetland shelf concern Will an increased aquatic bench area satisfy your concern? If not, will a fence surrounding the pond-' - Forebay takes up probably a third of the pond, and DCR is telling me not to include forebays in treatment volume. The forebays concept needs to be more focused. 1 DCR's VSMH,chapter 3.04,page 3 states under the header'volume' "The volume of the sediment forebay is not in addition to the required volume of the retention basin permanent pool, but rather as part of the required pool volume." I understand DCR may be telling you one thing,but their manual states something completely different. And when I went through this exact scenario with Michelle a few months ago on Northtown's biofilter we ultimately concluded the forebay could not count towards the surface area because it specifically was not a pond. Now it appears as though your comment contracts Engineering's previous determination. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I feel not counting the forebay volume,even if it will now be reduced per your recommendation, is not justified. - The emergency spillway is over the fill area. This is an unstable condition. In my engineering judgment the spillway appears to be located in the most practical place, even if it is in fill. I cannot place it on the north side(uphill side),nor can I place it on the east or west sides due to their uphill elevations and existing utilities/residence. Placing it adjacent to the residence would be putting life/limb in added danger as well. I understand Engineering prefers the embankment be placed in cut, however in this scenario I do not see where the embankment can be placed anywhere else. - The forebays appear unserviceable. There does not appear to be access to them. I will try to make the forebays more accessible. - There does not appear to be a stream inlet channel. The most uphill point of the wetlands/intermittent stream is being filled.And the area above it will also be filled.As such,there will just be a low area/swale flowing to the pond. Is this not sufficient? 2 ,ANS 6 MANE.ANAnfOWUE 7R1fjjT RtfA['A1 OA A / O../ FALL.6ACIeEVEO CONTRACTOR attttf7Rt narrn*t or1ALMO aPSTIp Mt u motor Th1E MONIER MOO r+�ae ru aril TAClfTTT _ �ORc. y w O4tACT10NSTO The , f ♦S 't w ;"'r r...,....�... fR7fTtd+G .1CPA NNT SOGUTfA UPDATES S CAM rr. ACAA LSN? ADE w / N. littidtt Willi? ti N. , J' emmu.r III MO.Idr11RJT \ ,� s Syu,,,, n0.T J@ PROS' POP I or aA A,Et=,re "WA.VOIPMerti rotRe / ♦ "'1* q "or fP 7..J.V..?S'ill N� 9.... Wr I .,, 7 I, �� a ,. .J f ... `* r A gt ! 0 1I -s a in , t ` Ar • .taR ` ....:1✓ .-^-, $ ' y» mire 4✓ O �v tl ASSORT "" 4 *41/4 \ \ -._.---- ---stn'RD;OAP r-till All flIV Rnt.St \ AI:, _ - vhra-S A r nev 61P■ ■ _ Inrsr- - �+OW75�0 RECtkrrlGu �g�.m- tiw of oa vrwAx wrrn iii V r 1 ItMT 641"a7A#rAY ' ,°lam Nsyp7 pl S '11, k g Tl t'row • XUF AYYY'-f#e aNAft AI' r'RPRkSFD S./0 { �^'A SVOWNCd1n Af Y'ru- DAi' j DvettPOS/C.te ""',,. -N- { e aNA1t AF ACM;7AGK7FD Or OlMAT'FM1Y 0(146 V M7 CONE':Ars 4/A6!"A LfiT •y., riiifjg DAlFF[rf'G1.YRBT< 6 q i f �,,l',‘, " ( ,, /1141aoetx9 aril ISift i r/ 4V 1 U Gi 9 491 / /, / 1/ w 2 540 1 $ 1 444 / // ' ` I s ' �/ 535 r.:rrntn,n wr... �I., -54. I / r y M& ..,./"WOW RAF 930 a a From: Graham Murray [mailto:graham@collins-engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:53 AM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Avinity pond Good morning Glenn, Thanks for taking a quick look at this. I've attached progress prints of sheets SWM-1 through 3 for Avinity.Sheet SWM-1 shows the revised WQ calcs,sheet SWM-2 shows the future conceptual layout at this point and most importantly sheet SWM-3 shows the updated pond design sized for the approved Avinity project and the future development. Please note, if your WQ calculations indicate a required RR efficiency of 64%for the sites then a type III retention basin is still sufficient. I'm most interested in your potential acceptance of the pond configuration as it pertains to the aquatic bench. As you can see on sheet SWM-2 and 3 we've maximized the space available for the pond. On the west side of the pond we're bounded by the ACSA 3 utility easement,on the north side we're restricted by the other ACSA easement and the stream preservation,on the east side we're bounded by the existing house and on the south side we're restricted by the future road connection(best viewed on sheet SWM-2). Also, I believe I mentioned on the phone earlier that the grandfathered DCR manual states an aquatic bench is required for retention basins,but nowhere in the manual does it state it is required for the entire perimeter. I'm hopeful this pond configuration will suffice because it's at capacity and utilizes every square foot available. If you need an example of a recently approved project in Albemarle to set the precedence for a similar configuration I've attached the Belvedere Phase II retention basin showing its aquatic bench. Thanks again for your experienced eyes on this. I hopeful you are in agreement that our newly expanded pond maximizes the most practical and available space. Graham From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS @albemarle.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:29 AM To: Graham Murray Subject: Avinity pond Graham. I got your message. It sounds like the aquatic bench is still a question. If you could e-mail a version of your new design plan view, I'd like to pass it around here and see what people are doing. Thanks. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County 4 Glenn Brooks From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 4:47 PM To: Graham Murray Cc: Michael Koslow; Michelle Roberge; Max Greene Subject: FW: Avinity pond Graham, I had some time to go over this with Michael and Max. Here is my take. - There is not enough aquatic bench. There needs to be a certain volume of plants as a ratio to the water quality volume. A good guide for us is the recommended surface areas in table 3.06-2. 15%surface at 0-1.5', 15%at 1.5-2'. - 2:1 slopes into a pond is typically not safe for pedestrians, and a safety shelf area is needed,which ties into the wetland shelf concern - Forebay takes up probably a third of the pond, and DCR is telling me not to include forebays in treatment volume. The forebays concept needs to be more focused. - The emergency spillway is over the fill area. This is an unstable condition. - The forebays appear unserviceable. There does not appear to be access to them. - There does not appear to be a stream inlet channel. 1 ■441101111ENSUItt AN 40449ATE ! '14,7iti'r RiiacifxoRJ a / U ... TALL 4ACFMEYED COIKRRACTQR : ;' AatvRs,vrrnas ort*LARA ,+ �.,.. COSTING ON U.1.NOM T•K(NO EEN MOO nor TO Fry FACILITY ..: MX"C0►4TO fl*P �� _} .. T10MS TO THE PME .r\ » iv'---- r_.._� swarm 3OUPDATES CAM Mr r ACTA SSYT. ME TONNE OUNW STS • \ L@ PAD003 SPY j • / I PA WTT t roaver ` J 0000 00 wf Y p* / tAAMw MINIM rr C 1 t` Jr •areuc fa Z .„_ r A T 1. ,„4,, , — c'NZ u -suF 41 mrii".� y d rorA or 4e0.40 YA. , ,, ' . 0000,00 •r tErV 41.1t w PUQ Q'SFO Ot UN*PK,U ■ ' OF MIK ttAy TT$ c#010"0 o rYPAtYS 0 E.` raaaaLtxtur _ ",,, f tt}'J or.YTRtAM .5 — 4 r.:.:'+T I sir r t. _ ; rrar rattaur OAN br ��!frig* • hIP tt[r—Mr SNAIL RX rwRrta Ad` N1PP(LTSO JOY-.-a ( s, ', I+' 'y/RYRJICXD At YrYX 0,1l SNAxL rt lg,74RL.T7to Or 0 yn�IT4 m*1444-21 + CIYT. roratratt 'ak -r1' �' ♦X[Dta cAtutw YAStzTc I i 1 i / J . }0 t' PR EIPDSRA 31M 6SYr, , . I ..M M-. / • / , 4° ) i 4 o 9 / �# a Ol / • / r4 i 443 / ��� w Ns"^ ? /i /yCb ra r1 535 rnsrrowou.s,, r / v u PA TAsto/was.) g 6 tsar COMMA= r x .,1 A.7G'NA RA, 530 From: Graham Murray [mailto:grahamOcollins-engineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:53 AM To: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: Avinity pond Good morning Glenn, Thanks for taking a quick look at this. I've attached progress prints of sheets SWM-1 through 3 for Avinity. Sheet SWM-1 shows the revised WQ calcs,sheet SWM-2 shows the future conceptual layout at this point and most importantly sheet SWM-3 shows the updated pond design sized for the approved Avinity project and the future development. Please note, if your WQ calculations indicate a required RR efficiency of 64%for the sites then a type III retention basin is still sufficient. I'm most interested in your potential acceptance of the pond configuration as it pertains to the aquatic bench. As you can see on sheet SWM-2 and 3 we've maximized the space available for the pond. On the west side of the pond we're bounded by the ACSA 2 utility easement,on the north side we're restricted by the other ACSA easement and the stream preservation, on the east side we're bounded by the existing house and on the south side we're restricted by the future road connection (best viewed on sheet SWM-2). Also, I believe I mentioned on the phone earlier that the grandfathered DCR manual states an aquatic bench is required for retention basins, but nowhere in the manual does it state it is required for the entire perimeter. I'm hopeful this pond configuration will suffice because it's at capacity and utilizes every square foot available. If you need an example of a recently approved project in Albemarle to set the precedence for a similar configuration I've attached the Belvedere Phase II retention basin showing its aquatic bench. Thanks again for your experienced eyes on this. I hopeful you are in agreement that our newly expanded pond maximizes the most practical and available space. Graham From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS©albemarle.orq] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:29 AM To: Graham Murray Subject: Avinity pond Graham. I got your message. It sounds like the aquatic bench is still a question. If you could e-mail a version of your new design plan view, I'd like to pass it around here and see what people are doing. Thanks. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer Albemarle County 3