HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200900035 Review Comments Erosion Control Plan 2009-08-05ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Meadow Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor
Contract C: WPO- 2009 -00035
Plan preparer: William Judy; Greeley and Hansen
Owner or rep.: Michelle Simpson; Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Date received: 19 February 2009
(Rev. 1) 17 July 2009
Date of Comment: 24 March 2009
(Rev. 1) 5 August 2009
Engineer: Phil Custer
The ESC plans for the upgrade to the Meadow Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor, received on 17 July
2009, have been reviewed. Since the last submittal, the applicant has separated the work into two different
sets so that two different grading permits can be given after plan approval.
A. General review comments:
1. This review is only for the portion of the ESC plan within the County. ESC measures within
the city limits must be reviewed and approved by the city.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been acknowledged by the applicant.
2. The aerials over the streams are regulated by 18 -30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District Section
of the Zoning Ordinance and require a special use permit to be approved by the County
Board of Supervisors (please see the determination from the Zoning Department). A letter of
map amendment through FEMA will likely be a condition of approval. [18 -30.3] (link to
application)
(Rev. 1) This comment is no longer applicable. Since the first review of this plan, an
ordinance amendment has been approved by the Board of Supervisors.
3. Please provide proof of permanent and temporary easements from the owners of all county
parcels affected by construction operations. If permanent easements already exist, please
provide the deedbook and page number in the plan view sheets. If new permanent easements
are needed, please provide the necessary plats. Temporary construction easements can be an
email or letter from the property owner stating the proposed work outside of the permanent
utility easement is allowed on his/her parcel.
(Rev. 1) Necessary easements from the City of Charlottesville are still pending.
4. Please provide the FEMA map number and date for the floodplain.
(Rev. 1) All work within FEMA floodplain is exempt. Comment no longer needs to be
addressed.
5. The FEMA floodplain should be shown at the elevations specified in the latest map.
(Rev. 1) All work within FEMA floodplain is exempt. Comment no longer needs to be
addressed.
6. Please provide the source, date, and benchmark of the topography.
(Rev. 1) Please provide the response to this comment in all three sheet sets.
7. Please provide approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed work within the
streams and wetlands.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
8. VDOT approval is required. At this time, VDOT comments have not yet been received.
(Rev. 1) Approval does not appear to be necessary for Contract C.
B. ESC review comments:
1. All construction entrances must be shown as 12ft by 70ft in the plan.
(Rev. 1) See the comment below.
2. Please provide a note on sheet C5 at the City /County line that construction access to the
interceptor from Sta. 64 +50 to 72 +50 is from Holmes Ave. and was reviewed and approved
by the City of Charlottesville.
(Rev. 1) If construction will be accessed from the parkway project's limits of disturbance
please show this on the plan and certify with a note that access will meet all state erosion
and sediment control standards.
3. There are two stream crossings (SC) proposed on sheet C6. Please specify the design of each
of these crossings. It appears that due to the size and characteristics of both drainage areas, a
temporary bridge will be required for each. The stream crossings should be located outside
of the area needed to construct the sewer lines. Engineering review recommends accessing
this area of the project from the west through TMP 61 -192 because a prolonged construction
entrance at that section of Rio Road may be problematic.
(Rev. 1) There are no stream crossings proposed within Contract C.
4. Please provide dewatering structure symbols at the other two utility stream crossings.
(Rev. 1) Comment is no longer applicable.
5. Please show the existing vegetation, existing tree lines, and proposed treelines on the plan.
[DM]
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
6. Please provide a staging and parking area on the plan.
(Rev. 1) Engineering review understands that staging and parking for this contract will
likely be included within the parkway limits of construction. This comment is no longer
applicable.
7. On sheet G1, please add a note to the Barrier Tape designator (BT) and linestyle that it is to
double as the limits of construction line.
(Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed.
8. Please provide a stream crossing at Sta. 93 +00. Please provide the design of this stream
crossing. What will the permanent solution for the sewer crossing of this stream be since the
pipe appears to be obstructing the existing stream flow?
(Rev. 1) Engineering review recommends that greater clearance (ideally Ift) is given
between the top of the box culvert and the bottom of the sewer interceptor at this station.
The profile does not appear to consider the thickness of the two pipes or leave room for
error during construction.
9. Please end the limits of construction line at the end of Contract A.
(Rev. 1) Show the end of the limits of construction under this plan at MDW -39 as it was
done at MDW -49.
10. The ESC bond will be computed once all comments have been addressed.
(Rev. 1) The WPO bond for the ESC work associated with Contract C has been computed
to be $26,400.
Please contact me at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3072 or email pcuster @albemarle.org if you have any questions.
File: E2_esc_PBC_WPO- 2009 -00035 Meadowcreek Interceptor Contract C.doc