HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400086 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2015-02-23�pF A
vt�r�1Q
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: Foothill Crossing Phase IV & V
Project file number: WPO- 2014 -00086
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.:
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
Plan received date:
15 October 2014
(Rev. 1)
6 February 2015
Date of comments:
7 November 2014
(Rev. 1)
23 February 2015
Reviewer:
Justin Deel
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. The VSMP application content requirements can
be found in County Code section 17 -401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. Please use the standard template from the county website.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Provide SWPPP documents (sheets 13 -20) as a stand -alone package. Do not include them as part
of the road plan package.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. An operator must be named, and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is
no designated contractor or project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
Revision 1 Comments:
4. Provide registration statement.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1. Provide a PPP containing the elements and details of measures to minimize the discharge of
pollutants as outlined in Albemarle County section 14 -404. (Part of template above)
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
C. 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.
Provide SWMP in accordance with new criteria. This project is not considered grandfathered,
therefore type IIC criteria is not applicable. In order to have been considered grandfathered, you
would have needed an approved SWPPP for phases IV and V before July 1, 2014 (9VAC25 -870-
47). A valid SWPPP would need to have included an approved erosion and sediment control plan,
and an approved stormwater management plan for the entire area. This was not the case.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments:
2. Please remove proposed unapproved features from your pre - development plan.
3. Your pre - development stormwater management plan is not accurate. Existing topography and
drainage areas must be provided in order to compare to your proposed post - development
conditions.
4. Post - development drainage area boundaries cannot be dependent upon future development. They
must reflect current site conditions (or previously approved site conditions) and/or conditions
proposed with this plan. (The exception to this would be if a master plan was prepared for the
entire development area, which would be separate from a plan for this phase.)
5. Your post - development DA #lA is not accurate. The area southwest of Trinity Way will not drain
to the SWM facility and will add to the untreated DA #1AC (see below).
6. The proposed area of 19.69 acres (DA #1C) to be untreated is unacceptable. The target for capture
should be 90 %.
7. Remove all future plan information that will not be approved with this plan (stream crossing,
connector road, Facility 2A - it is noted that the Facility 2A design was not acceptable on the plan
for that section, which should be redesigned to better accommodate existing topography and
drainage divides.)
8. Please show and label the wooded areas used in your curve number calculations.
9. Show and label WPO buffer.
D. 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. Remove "dashes" from purpose statement in narrative. These are confusing when combined with
the + and = signs. The narrative should reference only the area to be disturbed with this plan for
phase IV and V.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Update topographic information to show all existing features. This topography does not appear
accurate adjoining phase 3, where all lots have been graded, and at the road connection, where a
large stockpile area currently exists. If basins from prior phases are to be built, provide as -built
information for the basins. Prior design information is not adequate.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
3. Please remove all prior plan information that will not be approved with this plan. This plan is very
confusing, showing previous phases E &SC drainage areas and facilities. The prior plan was not
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
actually implemented accurately in the field. The long diversion was never properly in place, and
sediment trap 2 does not exist. Remove all reference to previous E &SC that will not be a part of
Phases IV & V.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Diversion dikes that traverse the site are too long and winding and will be inadequate. Provide
additional sediment traps instead. (The long diversion to avoid traps did not work in prior phases.)
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Proposed grading for Sediment Basin 3 extends into WPO buffer. Eliminate buffer disturbances,
or provide convincing evidence that such disturbances are truly unavoidable, which requires
approval from WPO Program Authority and a mitigation plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please show all proposed grading. The proposed
contours on the downstream side of the dam are difficult to make out on the plan and absent in the
basin detail. It appears that grading for the dam may still extend into the WPO buffer (which is
also absent in the basin detail). Please show all proposed grading and all WPO buffers in the
basin /trap details. Also, please remove construction lines from the basin/trap details or label them
if they are part of your plan.
6. Label WPO buffer limits.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Show and label all existing easements.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Provide emergency spillways for proposed sediment basins.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Emergency spillways cannot be constructed over fill
material per VESC Handbook, p. III -89. Please correct.
9. Make it more clear that any diversion dikes are to extend to stone outfalls at basins. This did not
occur in prior phases.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Extend stone outfalls to basin floors.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Correct Sediment Basin 1 dimensions (plan view) on Sheet 20.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. The use of baffles is to be avoided. Provide the proper basin dimensions. Baffles were not
installed in prior phases.
(Rev. 1) Comment response accepted.
13. Provide actual sections, to scale, for proposed sediment basin details, showing both existing and
proposed grades. Include accurate depictions of structures. Show crest of riser as elevation of top,
rather than top of anti -vortex device.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. The vertical to horizontal exaggeration is too great.
Please decrease this so that the labeling is less crowded and the sections look closer to actual.
14. Show dewatering orifice elevations and diameters in sediment basin details.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
15. Correct title of Sediment Basin 1 design table (currently refers to Sediment Basin #4).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Provide paved construction entrance detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
17. Please remove North arrow from middle of Sediment Basin 1 on Sheets 18 and 20.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments:
18. Mitigation must be provided for all areas of disturbance within the WPO buffer. This includes the
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
WPO buffer disturbance around Sediment Basin 2.
19. The transition between Phase 1 and Phase 2 in the area east of Sediment Trap 1 appears to be
inadequate. Please adjust your E &SC measures here. An additional sediment trap may be
necessary in this area.
20. There is inconsistent information (elevations, barrel length) between the detail and section
drawings for Sediment Basin 3, please correct.
21. Please remove the mention of topsoil from the note pointing to the dam core in the sediment basin
sections.
22. There are many stray construction lines and labels on these plans, please remove.
23. Please correct existing depression note in Trap #1 drainage area.
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 be 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.
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;
http : / /www.albemarle.org/deptforms .asp ?department =cdena no
File: Foothill Crossing Ph 45 WP0201400086 Rl.doc