HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400087 Approval - County 2015-06-15�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: The Lofts at Meadowcreek
Project file number: WPO- 2014 -00067
Plan preparer:
WW Associates, Inc.
Owner or rep.:
Bluestone Land, LLC
Plan received date:
1 October 2014
(Rev. 1)
27 February 2015
(Rev. 2)
6 May 2015
(Rev. 3)
26 May 2015
(Rev. 4)
10 June 2015
Date of comments:
3 November 2014
(Rev. 1)
24 March 2015
(Rev. 2)
22 May 2015
(Rev. 3)
8 June 2015
(Rev. 4)
15 June 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 approved. All of the items below
have been satisfactorily addressed. The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County
Code section 17 -401. You may contact Ana Kilmer (Albemarle County Department of Community
Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures and maintenance agreements.
Please provide 2 copies of the plans containing original signatures on, at least, the plan index
sheet. SWPPPs should also have original signatures, once submitted.
(Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
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 ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. Please use the standard template from the county website.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An updated SWPPP was not included with this resubmission.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
2. Provide SWPPP documents as a stand -alone package. Do not include them as part of the site plan
package, as the zoning site plan approval will not be a valid VSMP approval.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed. This comment should have been place in Section C, below. The
intent of this comment was to provide VSMP documents separate from site plan documents, which
has been done.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1. Not found.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An updated SWPPP containing a PPP was not included with
this resubmission.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is approved; all concerns and comments below have been addressed. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403.
1. The dam cannot have a sanitary sewer line or manhole in it.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Any basin should have 3:1 slopes for maintenance and safety [VSMH Vol. 1, 3.01 -13]
(Rev. 1) Comment response acceptable.
3. The County BMP spreadsheet is no longer acceptable. Please provide water quality calculations
according to the State regulation 9VAC25- 870 -62 etc., for Part IIC criteria.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Provide a drainage area map for each area used in calculations.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Stormwater narrative references July 14, 2014, and should be July 1St
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
6. Stormwater narrative references "Level 1" biofilter, which implies Part IIB criteria. See comment
3.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. The area used in required biofilter surface area calculations (49,760 sf) is different than the given
impervious area (45,073 sf). Additionally, the total impervious area used in County BMP
spreadsheet is 47,650 sf.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Appears that more than a biofilter may be required.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. Pollutant removal calculations reference "Level 1" biofilter. This is new (IIB) criteria language.
Please revise computations to follow IIC criteria.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Bioretention details reference "Level 2" (new criteria language). Please provide Type IIC details.
Use basin sizing methodology found in VSMH Vol. 1, 3.11 -13.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Your bioretention facility detail calls for a 12 inch minimum ponding depth. The maximum
ponding depth is 6 inches for a bioretention basin. (VSMH Vol. 1, 3:11 -3)
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Your response that 3.11A applies in this case is
understood. However, your note on the detail still calls for a 12 inch minimum ponding depth.
The maximum ponding depth should be 12 inches, per your response and VSMH 3.11 -14. Please
correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
12. Provide actual sections, to scale, for bioretention details, showing both existing and proposed
grades.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
13. Predeveloped SWM drainage map extends off property. Pre- and post - developed drainage areas
appear an invalid basis for compliance. There does not appear to be a reason for this, and it affects
the computations (Tc, CN, etc.) significantly. Please use the point of discharge from the site,
which will restrict the drainage areas to the site itself.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. DD at SW side of property appears to divert to neighboring property.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The diversion dike in question (beginning near the stockpile
area) appears unchanged and routes drainage from 61A -14 directly onto 61A -16. Please correct
this. (Note: Comment should have appeared in E &SC comments)
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
15. The hydrograph reports were not reviewed, as it is expected that changes to the slopes, access,
retaining walls, and avoiding the sewer location will necessitate redesign.
(Rev. 1) Comment acknowledged.
16. Provide sheets which are titled and clearly provide a stormwater management plan. Only
computations and maps were found. (These cannot be approved as part of a site plan.) Include
soil types.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide a " Stormwater Management Plan ".
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
17. Label contours on drainage plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comment:
18. Please see Comment 11 from the Revision 1 site plan review. The trench drain at the garage
entrance is not shown on the Storm Drainage Area Map. Please clarify.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
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 approved; all E &SC concerns appear adequately addressed. The erosion control plan
content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -402.
1. Please do not show piping in the sediment trap, unless it is to be a sediment basin. If a stormwater
basin is to be used, it should be designed as a sediment basin also, so that the piping in the dam is
installed once for both the temporary and the permanent control.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The sediment trap needs to be installed first, unless this is to
be a sediment basin. Making this a sediment basin could potentially eliminate the need for the DD
that diverts drainage onto the neighboring property (SWM Comment 14). If this is to be a
sediment trap, please remove riser and pipe from the E &SC plans.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
2. The first phase of the E &SC plan must not have site improvements which will not be there at start.
Show all measures to be installed as a first step in any land disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. See site plan comments regarding critical slopes, walls, slopes, etc. A redesign may be required.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Provide silt fence around the site perimeter.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
The right -of -way diversion must drain to a sediment trapping measure.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
6. Show soil types on plan.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Provide stock pile location and staging /parking area.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. On north side of site, silt fence should not be shown going downhill.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. Your adequate channel analysis doesn't look complete. Check channel calculations and CN values.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Our field review indicated a heavily eroded channel
downstream of your outfall. Please indicate how you intend to address this issue.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
10. Provide construction entrance detail.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
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;
hlt2://www.albemarle.org/del2tforms.asp?department--cdenamo
File: E1_vsmp_ review _ LoftsAtMeadowcreek_wpo20l400087 R2.doc