HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400074 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2014-11-20� OF AL
,. vIRGI1`IZP
COUNTY 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:
Riverside Village
Project file number:
WP0201400074
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering [Justin @chimp- engineering.com]
Owner or rep.:
RIVERSIDE VH_LAGE PROPERTIES INC
Plan received date:
31 October 2014
Date of comments:
20 November 2014
Reviewers:
Max Greene, Glenn Brooks
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 denied. The
rationale is given in the comments below. The application may be resubmitted for approval if all
of the items below are satisfactorily addressed. No additional fee is required for resubmittal. The
VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -401.
A complete VSMP SWPPP package was not found. A pollution prevention
plan was not found. Comments regarding the stormwater management plan
for Riverside are as follows;
Rev.1: Future submission will not be reviewed without a complete VSMP
package. This project should have an active SWPPP for on -going
grading activities, and this would be amended with this new set of
plans and documents.
1. This plan assumes the use of type IIC technical criteria, which
has not been established. Provide evidence of state coverage per
9VAC25- 870 -47. This plan is not applicable for grandfathering
under 9VAC25- 870 -48 as the zma was approved after July 2012. The
rest of these comments assume you can establish grandfathering.
If that is not the case, no comments are applicable, and the plan
must be redesigned under the IIB criteria.
Rev.1: not addressed. Please provide a copy of the DEQ Coverage
Letter with the expiration date of June 30, 2019. Please submit
a copy as soon as possible. Future submission will not be
reviewed without this item.
Rev.2. OK
2. Infiltration systems cannot be approved without passing soil
tests being performed prior to plan approval. Please provide
tests verifying soil infiltration rates, and sufficiently low
groundwater tables, and evidence that these areas of ground have
not been disturbed with current ongoing grading activities.
Rev.1: Addressed.
Rev.2. OK
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
3. There is not enough detail on the plans for a complete review.
All BMP's need to have details, profiles and sections drawn to
scale, showing existing and final grades, layout, access, and
control structures.
Rev.1: Not addressed. There was no profile or details for
detention chamber A4A. The biofilters do not have profiles or
details to scale, only a typical section. The sections for
system D are not located on the plan view and do not contain
grades. Design details and a marked plan were provided in the
meeting of 22 Oct 2013.
Rev.2: Please revise the drawing to accurately reflect a forebay
weir. The weirs shown do not appear sufficient. Perhaps Gabion
baskets might work better in this situation, as a proper stone
weir might take up too much space. The biofilter itself should
not be part of the forebay area, so would not have media. In the
case of facility C, it might be easier to try and establish sheet
flow into the facility and just a grass and stone entry similar
to the examples in the VSMH.
4. Infiltration systems cannot be approved in fill areas.
Rev.1: not fully addressed. See #3.
Rev.2. OK
5. Each BMP must have a properly sized forebay area that can be
accessed for regular maintenance.
Rev.1 not addressed. Sizing for forebays in biofilters was not
found. It is not clear how drainage gets to biofilter C. The
forebay pipe in system D appears to show fabric inside the pipe,
which does not seem possible, and not all inlets are captured.
Please provide these details.
Rev.2: Please see item 3.
6. Please provide design computations for water quality sizing of
facilities. None were found.
Rev.1: See item #1.
Rev.2: The computations are OK, but with corrections as noted in
our meeting of 20 Nov 2014.
7. A sump must be provided at inlets B2 -B3 for capture of the 10year
storm. Similar assurances should be provided for each facility.
Rev.1: not addressed. I found nothing on the plan for inlet B2-
B3. Note the sump or provide the profile.
Rev.2. OK
8. The drainage system must capture the 10year storm for the
stormwater management concept to function. The inlet
computations do not demonstrate this.
Rev.1: Not addressed. These comps and specs were not included in
the WPO drawings.
Rev.2. OK
9. A CLOMR is recommended. You proceed at your own risk with filling
before FEMA approval. Normally, this is a condition of the Special Use
Permit. I'm not sure why this was left out of the staff report with
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
this development. I will hold off approving any final plats for lots in
the fill areas until FEMA approval is obtained.
Rev.2: no change.
A. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1. Please provide a copy of the DEQ Coverage Letter with the expiration date of June 30, 2019. Please
submit a copy as soon as possible. Comment/request adequately addressed.
B. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403.
1. See County Engineer comments above.
C. 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 disapproved, 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. The paved temporary construction entrance detail is required on the VSMP plan. (policy) The
contractor and Inspector will work out the details as to what entrance will be utilized on site.
Comment/request adequately addressed.
2. Stormwater pipe profiles were not included for E &SC review. Please show outlet protection per
VESCH 3.18 on the stormwater pipe profiles.
Thank you for the pipe profiles, however the outlet protection for Al could not be found on the
profiles.
3. Pipe extension for VDOT 60" culvert appears to empty into a pool. Please show better details for
construction and review for VESCH requirements on outlet protections.
Site conditions have changed. VDOT reports pipe could not be sleeved with 60" round pipe as
proposed. Existing pipe is reported to be an old elliptical CMP. Please show new proposal for
pipe repair under State Route 20.
4. Narrative states "see page C2 for existing features. Which sheet is C2?
Comment/request adequately addressed.
5. Several references to pages with a prefix "C" are on plan sheets but no "C" plans are supplied.
Comment/request adequately addressed.
6. Could not find benchmark location and datum on plan, please clarify.
Plan has a triangle with the #4 in it and states Sanitary Sewer MH Top 322.16. Please change
the benchmark legend on the first page to match the benchmark location and datum on the plan
sheet.
7. Previously approved grading plan is County # WP0201400021. Please add this to reference note
so inspector /public can easily locate the plan in the County system.
Comment/request adequately addressed.
8. Outlet protection or temporary slope drain should be shown for pipe into basin so slope is not
eroded during construction.
Comment/request adequately addressed.
9. Please show how site is protected from soil loss during the basin #1 conversions from Phase 2 to
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
Phase 3; appears to require a complete re- construction of the basin. It appears the site will not be
protected during conversion. Will the contractor use pump - around systems and filter boxes or
filter bags? Site will need to be completely stabilized prior to final conversion.
10. As mentioned in our last meeting for this site; the proposed stormwater system D 1 to D2B appears
to be filled with water during a storm event and partially during the normal conditions pool
elevation. The D1 pipe will be under water. The site work elevations do not appear to allow for
the system to be elevated to resolve this issue. Can the system be installed at a later date after the
site is deemed stabilized? Can an armored swale be installed until the phase 2 portion of the site is
developed?
11. The proposed contours on Sheet C22 do not appear constructible. The areas around the proposed
basins do not appear to work until the final design is constructed. Please show that all phases of
construction work and will not be cause for site delays due to constructability issues that may arise.
12. Inspection department has requested silt fence along the backs of curb or sidewalks to keep
stormwater from flowing into the roads prior to final stabilization. This is only for the up -slope
sides of the roads.
13. The right -hand road stub -out should have a right -or -way diversion installed to prevent stormwater
from flowing into the road.
14. Please show a diversion or RWD into basin #1 for the road/turn-lane construction to capture as
much of the site work as possible.
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 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.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
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
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;
ht!p://www.albemarle.or�z/deptforms.asp?department=cdenawpo
File: E1_vsmp_review_projectname.doc