HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201500015 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2015-10-19 Sore
. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
November 19, 2015
Mr. Justin Deel
Civil Engineer
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Regarding: Free State Run—VSMP WPO201500015
Dear Mr. Deel,
Thank you for your review of the VSMP for Free State Run. We have revised the plans per
County comments dated October 19, 2015. Please find below a detailed comment response letter describing
the changes we have made to each of your comments.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1. We will provide a new SWPPP.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan
1. An 11x17"copy of the Pollution Prevention Plan will be provided with the SWPPP
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
1. This comment has been noted, and is in the process of being taken care of.
2. The detention pipe is not quite filled to capacity during the 10 year storm. We are allowing
the 10 year storm to almost fill the pipe and then use the overflow standpipe to convey water
after that point.
3. This has been corrected on the profile.
4. The post development point of analysis is a combination of the two points indicated since
water is flowing from both locations. We were trying to convey that idea on this sheet. The
calculations for both the pre and post development do not include the flow coming from the
Belvedere outflow pipe. We are not adding to the outflow from the pipe so we left it out. We
originally included flow from Belvedere in our SWM calculations but after meetings with the
County Engineer, it was determined that it was best to leave it out for sake of simplifying
calculations.
5. This is only a detention pond and not a retention pond (for clarification), so it doesn't actually
retain water. We are perfectly okay with the possibility that water might seep into the ground
below.
6. See detention pond profile on C13.
Some
7. Yes this is a sediment forebay,we have corrected all labels.
8. This has been corrected. Since the flow is well below the minimum indicated in the Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook at.66 cfs,we have determined that a 4' length of outlet
protection is enough.
9. We have corrected the embankment to be 3:1 and subsequently adjusted the detention pond
sizing.
10. The biofilter is not within the lot lines. Any grading in the adjacent lots are a part of the swale
leading to this facility.
11. On sheet C15, the profile for this storm sewer shows that the pipe has more than 3 feet of
cover.
12. This was a typo and has been corrected. This pipe is not intercepting 108 cfs.
13. Yes you are right, they have been corrected.
14. When we do the VDOT LD-204 worksheet(found in SWM packet), we increase the size of
the inlet until Hydraulic Toolbox program determines that the inlet is at 100%efficiency.
There are no assumptions being made.
15. Drainage Area#4 stops right before an existing storm sewer with a curb inlet on one side of
the road. I have extended the drainage area for the right side of the road up until Belvedere
Road, and have updated the calculations.
D. Erosion &Sediment Control
1. According to our email conversation, the county topo has: "4 Foot Contours Contour
Interval: 4 feet Orthophotography: 1 foot resolution"Standard" Scale: 1"=200' (1:2400)
Mass Point/Breakline Vertical Accuracyz(NSSDA @ 95%): 2'to 2.4'Overall DTM and
Contour Vertical Accuracyz (NSSDA @ 95%): 2'to 2.41". Per our most recent
conversations, aerial topo can be utilized if it's more accurate. As the steep slopes
ordinance is written, the slopes boundary is limited to the GIS layer and can only be
reduced. The aerial survey that was provided to us for this site has a scale of 1"=50'with
2'contour intervals with an accuracy of+/- 1'. This is more accurate than the field survey
provided by the county. We have evaluated the survey and determined that there are not
any areas that are steeper than 25% that remain unmarked as"preserved". We have
provided the survey that was done for this site.
2. Sequence of Construction
a. We have added an extra phase of construction to detail the removal of the sediment
basin.
b. This has been specified in the sequence of construction
c. The phase 2 sequence has been updated to reflect the changes we've made.
3. The grading plan sheet has been added to the plan.
4. The limits of disturbance have been updated.
5. The limits of disturbance have been updated.
6. We have provided calculations for the principal spillway and updated the sizing of the outlet
protection. It remains close to the property line but the grading is more than 10' away from
this line.
7. We have updated the calculations so that the riser is larger getting rid of the need to provide
an emergency spillway. We have also provided more than 2'of freeboard between design
high water elevation and top of dam. That is why the outlet protection for this basin is sized
for the 25 year storm. For sediment basin calculations, see SWM packet.
Page2
Stool ti.rS
8. The drainage areas for the sediment basin have been updated.
9. This has been corrected.
10. We have provided this on sheet C12, which was submitted with the Road Plan. We have
also added supplemental retaining wall computations.
Additional Comments via Email
1. We have adjusted the detention pipe to meet the 219'specified in the calculations.
2. We have provided a 24"standpipe in str-D3 to catch the overflow in the detention pipe and
subsequently discharge it through the culvert. See Sheet C-SWM2
3. We have provided .2% in the detention pipe. Please note that the pipe is corrugated metal, therefore
sediment will be caught in the ridges regardless.
4. We have removed the standard manholes on the detention pipe. Instead we have specified a
precast MH-2 with a flat top. Please see Sheet C16 for detail.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via e-mail at Morganna,shimp-engineerinq.com or
Justin Shimp at Justine shimp-engineerinq.com or by telephone at 434-227-5140.
Sincerely,
Morgan Bell
Page 13
�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
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Free State Run
WPO- 2015 -00015
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
Free State Partners, LLC
23 September 2015
19 October 2015
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 ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. Provide an updated SWPPP document address these and all previous VSMP comments.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1. Include l lx17 PPP map with updated SWPPP.
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.
1. The purchase of credits will need to be approved by the County Attorney's Office. Please contact
Ana Kilmer akilmerC&albemarle.org for required information and documentation for credit
purchases prior to finalizing the purchase.
2. The detention pipe is being filled completely to capacity during the 10 year storm, which will lead
to water backing up into the inlets. This should be avoided. The pipe may need to be resized.
Additionally, show that there is adequate over -land relief to avoid flooding the dwellings during
the 100 year storm. Is 1 /10" precision required for the orifice?
3. The detention pipe detail on CSWM 2 shows outlet protection at the proposed grade; however, the
outfall pipe is well below. Please address.
4. Sheet CSWM 2 shows a "point of analysis" pointing to two different locations on the plan. Please
explain this. Also, it says the total flow during the 10 year storm is 17.13 cfs for these two
locations combined, yet you have nearly 40 cfs from the new 30" pipe alone. Does your
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
calculation include the piping of the offsite drainage through the new 30" pipe?
5. The detention pond is being proposed in the area was previously proposed to be a Bioretention
facility. Is the soil in this area suitable for both? Soil permeability should be confirmed to be
adequate for a detention pond. A clay liner may be necessary. Please address.
6. Provide geotechnical specifications. All dams require a clay core, show this in cross sections.
7. The detention pond calls for a pretreatment cell but you are not claiming any water quality credit
for this facility. Is this the sediment forebay? Please clarify.
8. The Bioretention facility shows rip -rap outlet protection going through the timber sediment
forebay wall, please address.
9. Facility embankment slopes should be no steeper than 3:1. Please adjust detention pond
embankment slopes.
10. Please remove the Bioretention facility, and all directly associated grading, from the adjacent home
lot.
11. Demonstrate adequate cover where the rip -rap channel crosses the proposed 30" pipe in fill
material. Can this be avoided?
12. According to the stormwater inlet computation table, structure D3A intercepts 108 cfs. Is there
that much flow here? Please address.
13. Check the scales for the detention pond detail and cross - section. Are these reversed?
14. You've assumed that all your inlets will be 100% efficient. This seems a lofty assumption for
such a cramped site that relies on a detention pipe that will be filled to capacity during a 10 year
storm. Please address.
15. Why does drainage area #4 not include more of Freestate Road? Where is this drainage going?
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. Please remove disturbances to preserved slopes. Show preserved slopes as they appear on the
County GIS overlay. Aerial topography will not warrant removal of preserved slope designations.
Per Section 30.7.4(b)(h) of the County Code; new topographic information should be based on
more accurate or better technical data demonstrating that slopes are less than twenty -five percent,
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer (emphasis added). The County Engineer requires either
a field survey, provided by a licensed Professional Survey, or convincing certified documentation
that the new aerial topographic source is more accurate than the existing steep slopes overlay
district topography.
2. Please review and update your sequences of construction, Phases 1 & 2.
a. Provide more detail concerning the removal of sediment basin 2. How will this effectively
coincide with the installation of the detention system's outfall pipe?
b. The new 30" storm sewer pipe should be installed before the sediment basin 1 is installed.
Otherwise the basin should be sized to include drainage from the existing cross - drain.
c. It appears that the phase 2 sequence was not updated to reflect this resubmission as it calls
for the conversion of sediment basin 1 to a bio filter, and blocking structure E2 to prevent
sediment reaching the infiltration system. Do you mean E3 and the bio filter? Please
clarify.
3. Please re- include the grading plan. This is an essential element for E &SC /SWM review. The
E &SC Phase 2 sheet is not particularly clear.
4. The outlet protection for sediment basin 1 should be included in your limits of disturbance.
5. The limits of disturbance should also include all of the proposed improvements to and along Free
State Road. Please address.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
6. The outlet protection for sediment basin 2 looks a little small and is very close to the property line.
Please provide calculations confirming this is adequate.
7. Please address why sediment basin 2 does not have an emergency spillway. It appears in your
calculations but is not shown on the plan.
8. Please show sediment basin drainage areas on plan, and provide details and profiles (to scale) for
each basin, showing both existing and proposed grades.
9. Phase 2 plan shows sediment basin 1 as detention pond. Please correct this as it will not be a
detention pond during the E &SC phases.
10. Provide sealed retaining walls plans.
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?departinent=cdengmTo
File: WP0201500015 VSMP Review.doc
V 'r/
Justin Deel
From: Justin Deel
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 1:03 PM
To: Justin Shimp, P.E.
Subject: Planning Application Review for WPO201500015 Free State Run.
The Review for the following application has been completed:
Application Number=WPO201500015
Reviewer=Justin Deel
Review Status= Denied
Completed Date =09/03/2015
1. A USACE approval letter was requested on the first review, dated 27 April 2015(SWM Comment 5). As of the
third submission,this has not been addressed. A report from TNT Environmental, Inc.,dated 29 August 2014,
has been provided stating that there is"potential jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located
within the study area". The report goes on to offer to contact the USACE to schedule a field meeting to conduct
wetlands and Waters boundary confirmation and jurisdictional determination,and states that the process takes
an average of 3-4 weeks. Please provide requested documentation,as a wetland/perennial stream
determination from USACE could affect the SWM plan review.
2. The stormwater management plan is generally too difficult to piece together between the overall plan set and
the 11x17's in your computation packet. I cannot adequately review 11x17 plans. The computation packet
should be supplemental documentation supporting what is clearly outlined and defined in your plan set. Sheet 3
(C12)of this plan set shows details for Bioretention and underground detention facilities; however, it is not clear
where these facilities are located until careful inspection of your phase 2 E&SC sheet(C18),where the unlabeled
facilities are shown with the entire site. Please provide at a minimum in your plan set:
• Pre-development drainage area plan(s)with land cover summary
• Post-development drainage area plan(s)with land cover summary
• Summary of how you intend to comply with DEQ Type IIB,quality and quantity(facility details and cross-
sections(to scale),VRRM inputs and summaries, energy balance calculation summary, etc.). Provide
supporting calculations and data in your calculation packet.
If an item warrants depiction, include that item in the full-size plans. I will not accept 11x17 plans,going
forward.
3. There are numerous outstanding SWM comments provided by the previous reviewer that have either not been
addressed or cannot be verified,see above. Another example would be SWM comment 20;a perc test and
groundwater verification were requested,as the groundwater table should be at least 2 feet below detention
facilities. The reply was"perc tests will be provided". Given that,at the least,an intermittent stream flows
through this site, it is reasonable to expect that the groundwater table could potentially be an issue with the
facility by the entrance.
4. Storm sewer profiles have not been provided with this submission or with the Road and Drainage Plan
submission.
1
•
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SHIMP CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
August 6, 2015
Ms. Michelle Roberge
Senior Civil Engineer
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Regarding: Free State Run—Final Site Plan SDP 201500014
WP0201500015
Dear Mr. Newberry,
Thank you for your review of the preliminary site plan for Free State Run. We have revised
the plans per NDS comments dated July 16, 2015. Please find below a detailed comment response letter
describing the changes we have made to each of your comments.
1. The E&S sheets as well as the SWM detail sheet have been removed from the final site plan.
2. We are now installing a groundwater detention system near the location of the spring, and it will collect
any groundwater via the use of an underdrain.
3. Comment addressed.
4. Comment addressed.
5. We understand that disturbance of the preserved slopes requires rezoning but we will not be disturbing
any of the preserved slopes, see VSMP comment response.
6. Comment addressed.
7. Comment addressed.
8. Comment addressed.
9. Drainage easements are now being shown on all SWM facilities.
10. We have replaced the drainage flume with a drainage inlet and pipe to the bio retention pond, so we
will no longer need a runoff easement.
11. We have adjusted the pond near Lot 24 so that it does not cross property line.
12. Access easements to SWM facilities now being shown.
13. Comment addressed.
14. Comment addressed.
15. A separate road plan has been provided to be bonded.
16. Comment addressed.
17. Comment addressed.
18. Comment addressed.
19. VSMP comment response addresses this.
20. Comment addressed.
21. Comment addressed.
22. Outlets have been updated so that the velocity does not exceed 15 fps.
23. Comment addressed.
24. End sections/outlet protection has been provided on the requested profiles.
Sage •4101
25. Comment addressed.
26. Comment addressed.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1. The SWPPP onsite will have E&S and SWM plans included.
2. Final SWM calculations will be signed, sealed and dated.
3. Comment addressed.
4. Comment addressed.
5. Comment addressed.
6. Comment addressed.
7. Comment addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan
1. There is a 11x17 PPP in the SWPPP that includes locations of concrete washouts etc.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
1. We have changed the title to say VSMP and removed Sheet C12 from final site plan.
2. Comment addressed
3. The points of analysis have been simplified to the two existing swales that lead to the pond below
the site.
4. The underground storage pipe has been removed from underneath the residential lots, and into the
private road.
5. We have been in contact with Army Corp to obtain letter of approval for stream disturbance.
6. Preserved Slopes
a)The level spreader before the preserved slopes, instead the outflow pipe from the detention facility
will be routed between Lots 10 and 11.
b)There will be minimal grading behind Lots 5-8. The basement elevations of the units are within a
foot of existing grade.
c)As shown in Erosion Plan, we will stake a safety fence which is not to be crossed. We are happy
to have a County inspector verify that the slopes are undisturbed. We realize this will be more
expensive, but it is the builder's responsibility.
7. Comment addressed.
8. Comment addressed.
9. Curb inlet at B3A has been replaced with a Dl-7, thus bypassing water away from the bio retention
pond.
10. Credits have not yet been purchased, but the amount is specified in the SWM cover letter.
11. The Type Il 24 hour storm has been updated in the pre and post development HydroCad analysis.
Page (2
12. There is no intention to divert water around bio retention 2. There is no longer a spillway, all water
will be contained within the pond (while maintaining 1' ponding depth)and then will flow through
the D3 pipe to detention.
13. The toe of spillway from bio retention 1 is connected to the adjoining riprap.
14. Comment addressed.
15. Underdrains
a)The underdrain has been removed from the pre-treatment area for bio retention 1.
b)Biofilter mix has been removed from bio retention 1 pre-treatment.
16. Comment addressed.
17. We have provided a pre-treatment cell that then spills into a gravel diaphragm before entering bio
retention pond. Runoff from Lots 1 and 2 will flow from roofdrains into the sewer that flows into
pre-treatment cell.
18. Bio Retention 1
a) As stated previously, we are still waiting for a response from the Army Corp.
b) We will have one swale that is intersected by a berm then routed to the pre-treatment cell.
We have provided a detail of the area on the grading plan to create a clearer vision of our
intentions for this area.
c) We have replaced curb inlet with Dl-7 and to allow runoff to bypass biofilter.
d) See b)above.
e) We have provided a pre-treatment cell as well as a gravel diaphragm in our plans.
Bio Retention 2
a) We will provide underdrains for bio retention pond 2.
b) Again, there is no intention to divert runoff from biofilter 2, it has been sized to take in
runoff from Lots 22 and 23 and maintain 1'of ponding depth until piped through storm sewer
D3.
c) We removed the drainage swale and replaced with a pipe that flows into the bio retention
pond 2. That's why no more information was given for it.
d) Bio retention pond has been shifted so that it is not in Lot 24 and the easement has been
adjusted accordingly.
e) This is a level 1 bio retention facility, thus requiring one form of pre treatment which is
provided in the form of a pretreatment cell, in which we softened the 90 degree bend.
New SWM Comments:
19. The underground detention at entrance has been resized, but still remains large to detain 1 and 10
year storms.
20. Perc tests will be provided.
21. We have added access manholes to the detention pipe.
22. We have replaced the 48" pipe with an 84" pipe.
23. It is supposed to be a rectangular trench with stone, and pipe laid within it. See detail 9, sheet
C12.
Page 13
24. We have labeled the contours for the bio retention pond.
25. We have dimensioned the bio retention pond on sheet C12.
26. The contours for the embankments on both bio retentions have been labeled on sheet C12.
27. Cleanouts are being shown.
28. The side slopes have been clarified on sheet C12.
29. The length of the culvert exiting the biofilter has been labeled.
30. We have labeled the spillway elevation and provided its dimensions on bio retention 1.
31. New biofilter elevation is 405.5 and it has been labeled.
32. We have removed the wall from the bio retention pond. It is no longer necessary since we must
maintain 1'of ponding depth.
33. We have also removed the control structure.
34. We have verified that the invert out for bio retention 1 matches calculations.
35. Pipe labels and calculations have been double checked for consistency.
36. SWM easements are present on the plan.
37. We have created a new HydroCad model that matches the new simplified analysis within the site.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control
1. Comment addressed.
2. Comment addressed.
3. Comment addressed.
4. Comment addressed.
5. Comment addressed.
6. The safety fence has been adjusted to be within the limits of disturbance.
7. We have added notes about the DD's on erosion sheet. The diversion dikes will stay in
place until the curb gutter and sewer pipes are installed. After that, the silt fence will be
sufficient.
8. Comment addressed.
9. We have shifted the diversion dike 10'away from sanitary sewer.
10. Comment addressed.
11. Riprap sizing has been labeled on the outlet protection.
12. The detail title has been corrected.
13. Inlet protection is shown for all inlets now.
Page I 4
Planning Division
1. The end of Free State Drive complies with the specified County Code sections. We have extended
the ROW and the road to the property line as close as possible and we have coordinated with VDOT
on the requirements for a temporary turn around and none are required for SSAR regulations. It
seems that we can extend it further, but our road grading would be a lot steeper in order for the
grading to tie in to existing contours at the property line.
2. We have revised the street tree spacing to get closer to compliance.
3. Space constraints on Free State Drive will not allow us to extend the sidewalk all the way to Free
State Road. Also, we did not provide the sidewalk on the northern side of Free State Road, because
we stopped it short of the piece of land within uncertain ownership. In addition, we do not feel that is
necessary to provide a sidewalk where there are no houses on the northern side of Free State Road.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via e-mail at MorganAshimp-engineering.com or
Justin Shimp at Justin(a7shimp-engineering.com or by telephone at 434-227-5140.
Sincerely,
Morgan Bell
Page5
�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
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit plan review
Free State Run - VSMP
WP0201500015
Shimp Engineering
Free State Partners, LLC
5 Jun 2015
15 Jul 2015
Michelle Roberge
County Code section 17 -410 and Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:34 require 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) The SWPP on site should include the approved E &S and SWM plans.
[Revision 11 Comment noted.
2) Remove the stormwater calcs from the SWPP booklet. The calculations should be a separate
document that is signed, sealed and dated prior to approval.
[Revision 11 Calculations were pulled from the SWPP document. Please sign, seal and date
the final approved calcs.
3) The person responsible for pollution prevention practices can be the owner for now. It can be
updated later when the operator is known.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
4) In section 6 F, the County of Albemarle should be contacted not City of Charlottesville.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
5) Qualified personnel and contact info should be determined prior to pre -con. Include with SWPP
on site.
[Revision 11 Comment acknoweledged.
6) Owner can sign certification. Please update.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
7) Include a disturbance log.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1) The PPP should be labeled Pollution Prevention Plan and not just another copy of the E &S plan.
Include an 11 "x 17" Pollution Prevention Plan map showing concrete washout, porta johns,
fueling stations, and trash containers. This will be marked up by the contractor as construction of
site progresses.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed.
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.
1) The title on the plans should state "VSMP."
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. The title should include "VSMP" and not "Erosion &
Sediment Control Plan." Sheet C12 should be removed from the Final Site Plan and
included in the VSMP plan.
2) Include the disturbed acreage on the title sheet.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
3) When looking at adequate channels the ultimate point of analysis can be simplified. This may
change depending on how my BMP comments below are addressed.
[Revision 11 Comment still not addressed. The two drainage areas should be clearly shown
for the the 2 points of analysis within the site. I agreed to continue showing the other points,
but my review would focus on on the two points within the site. This was not completed.
4) The underground storage under lots 9 -14 is not approvable. Please show outside residential lots.
[Revision 11 Comment still not addressed.
5) 3' gullies are between the critical slopes and lots 1 -4. There appears to be a stream. Also, it is too
wet on preserved slopes near lot 27, which makes me think there is a spring. Please clarify as this
area has been flagged as wetlands onsite. I will need Army Corp approval. Also note buffers
should be shown if this is a perennial stream. This impacts the location of bioretention 1.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Please provide Army Corp letter that states no
wetlands. It appear the document submitted was completed by TNT Environmental Inc and
not the Army Corp determination /approval. See "Proceedings," in the TNT report.
6) It will be very difficult to avoid disturbance of preserved slopes. I have identified disturbed areas
below:
a) The pipe from the infiltration and detention facility.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
[Revision 11 The applicant has shown a level spreader prior to preserved slope. My
recommendation is to revise the pipe to be in between lot 10 -11.
b) The grading behind lots 5 -8.
[Revision 11 It will be difficult to avoid the preserved slopes.
c) If the dam from SWM comment 18d) is provided.
[Revision 1] I recommend piping to bioretention 1 instead of swale with armored rip rap. It
will be difficult to split the two swales.
7) Label all biofilters " bioretention."
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
8) The surface area of bioretentions can be counted as forest/open space. Add acreage of bioretention
1 and 2 to forest in VRRM.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
9) Include Drainage Area tabs for B & D. From comment 18 c, bypassing DA #6 may reduce the size
of bioretention 1. Revise on drainage area tab.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Show inlet at swale not a curb inlet 133A.
10) It appears that quality will be met with the 2 bioretentions. The infiltration facility is to obtain
runoff reduction credit.
[Revision 11 It is noted that applicant would like to purchase nutrient credit since water
quality is not met. Please note on report the remaining phosphorous load. Has this been
purchased?
Also, if the underground pipe at the entrance is perforated and infiltrates, how much runoff
makes it to bioretention 1 to be treated and how much can count as infiltration? Clarify how
that is addressed in quality comps.
11) Please revise Type 11 24 hour storm for the following:
1 yt= 3.04 ", 10 yr= 5.57 ", 100 yr= 9.14 ". There are discrepancies throughout the report.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed for the post development analysis.
12) Per Design Spec #9 for bioretention, there is no stacking of 10 and 100 year storms. We allow
ponding up to 12" only. Higher storm event should bypass facility or provide a means of relief via
emergency spillway to an adequate channel.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Provide more swale to divert water around
bioretention 2. See area between bioretention 2 and lots 22 -23.
13) Show a spillway to the toe for bioretentions. Show on profiles as well.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Connect toe of spillway from bioretention 1 to
adjoining riprap.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 8
14) Provide depth of filter media on Bioretention 2.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
15) Show underdrains for bioretention on plan and profile view.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed.
a) Do not include underdrain in pre- treatment cell for bioretention 1.
b) Remove the biofilter mix from pre- treatment cell.
16) Bioretention 2 does not appear to meet 12" stone minimum requirement. Clarify if soil infiltration
is the intent. Infiltration testing will need to be provided.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
17) A pre - treatment cell + another pretreatment method should be shown. See design table 9.3 in
design spec #9.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Also, note lots 1 -2 are not pre- treated.
18) There are concerns with the location of the bioretentions.
Bioretention 1:
a) If the stream is determined to be a perennial stream, there are buffers that need to be
established and location of bioretention 1 will need to shift. The program authority can only
authorize 50' horizontal buffer disturbance, measured from the most landward.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Need Army Corp determination.
b) Even if the stream is determined to be intermittent, the cause of the large gullies needs to
be determined. Flooding impacts should be addressed so proposed site is not impacted when
developed. For example, maybe an adequate channel needs to be constructed for the
conveyance of the offsite drainage areas (DA #8 and #6).
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. I recommend piping to pretreatment cell instead
of conveying stormwater to a rip rap channel prior to biortention 1. That way you don't
have two swales next to each other.
C) Also, DA #6 should be captured with an inlet and connected to the bypass stormsewer
system from DA #8.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Show inlet within swale instead of curb inlet B3A.
d) The runoff to C 1 appears to work if you place a dam to guide channel to bioretention 1.
Again, I want to reiterate, that the cause of the gullies should be determined otherwise, placing
a dam may pose more problems with large impoundment of water. Note any dam grading will
impact preserved slopes.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed.See b) above.
e) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
Bioretention 2:
a) Shows underdrains. Where does this outlet to?
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Show underdrains for bioretention 2.
b) It appears overflow from bioretention 2 will be diverted to an infiltration facility. The
location of the two facilities are conveying runoff around Lot 22 and 23, but problems can still
arise with back to back storms of larger events.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Show swale between lot 22 -23 and bioretention
facility to divert runoff.
C) Provide more info on drainage swale to bioretention 2 from cul de sac.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. No information was given.
d) Easements around bioretentions should not be within a proposed lot. For example, see
bioretention 2.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Top of bioretention 2 embankment is still
within lot 24. See sheet C8.
e) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment. This does not appear to be possible at the
current location.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. Soften the 90 degree bend in pretreatment cell.
New SWM comment:
19) The underground detention at entrance to the subdivision is oversized. Runoff from
drainage #6 can bypass the biofilter with an inlet at the swale.
20) Provide perc test for detention facilities and provide documentation that verifies
groundwater table. It should be at a minimum 2' below facility.
21) For underground detention, provide manhole at entrance and exits. This is not shown for
pipe near the entrance to the subdivision.
22) The 48" pipe capacity is exceeded for the 100 year. Please address.
23) How is stone to be wrapped around a circular 48" underground detention pipe? It's
possible, but contractor may do a trench with stone instead.
24) Label contours for bioretention 2 on sheet C6.
25) Dimension bioretentions on sheet C12, plan view.
26) On C12, label contours for top of embankment for both bioretentions. Label contours to
clarify grading for both bioretentions.
27) Show cleanouts on C12.
28) Clarify the excavated sideslopes for biofilter media and label in cross section views. It is not
clear. It varies from 3:1, 2:1 and 1:1.
29) On C12, label length of culvert from bioretentions on cross - sections.
30) On C12, label spillway elevation and show detail.
31) Label 403.10 elevation for bioretention 1 cross - section.
32) For bioretention 1 cross section, show top and bottom elevations for wall.
33) What is the control structure near bioretention 1?
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 8
34) Verify the invert out for culvert for bioretention 1 matches calculations.
35) In C14, the pipe between D2 -Dl do not match calcs.Verify.
36) Show SWM easement and access easement for bioretentions.
37) There are errors with the drainage diagram in hydrocad for pre - developed and post
developed condition. For example in pre - developed, subcatchment #2 should go to 3L.
For post - developed condition, the subcatchment acreage to the underground storage pipes
have been flipped. Please look into.
Infiltration Facility:
The infiltration facility has been removed from proposal. All comments have been removed.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP)
Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:55 require 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) Add to note 3 on sheet C18, under sequence of construction, "Outlet protection should be installed
prior to any drainage pipes being operational."
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
2) Include DC symbol on sheet C 17.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
3) Re -route portion of silt fence so it is not located downstream of outlet protection. See both outlets
from sediment basins.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
4) It will be difficult to avoid land disturbance on adjacent parcels. Provide temporary grading
easement or provide letters from adjacent property owners granting permission for offsite grading.
The areas close to the property line are stated below:
a) The retaining wall north of lot 27.
b) The southern edge of SB 1.
C) Fill area behind lots 9 -14
d) The retaining wall near lot 14. See how proposed grades need to tie to existing.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
5) S132 grading does not coordinate well with the road grading. Show an inset for the basin grades
that works with the road grades.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
6) SAF should be within the limits of disturbance.
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. See northern portion.
7) The intent is to provide erosion control measures so that mass grading can be possible. However,
the location of diversion dikes will make it difficult to grade lot 1, 5 -8, 15 -18 and 27. Clarify.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
[Revision 11 Comment not addressed. DDs are still in the way of grading. See near lot 1, 5 -8
and lot 18. Also, the sanitary sewer construction near lot 18 will be difficult if DD is
installed.
8) Remove sharp 90 degree turn for diversion dike.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
9) Provide temporary grading easement to connect sanitary sewer behind lot 18.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. I still need document that states adjacent
landowner is granting permission for construction /grading.
10) On chart for sediment basins, please note that A, B, C, D does not coincide with detail. Clarify and
verify grading plan reflects this.
[Revision 11 Comment addressed.
11) Provide outlet protection calcs.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. Show riprap size.
12) Show SAF detail.
[Revision 11 Comment partially addressed. The name in detail sheet is incorrect.
13) Show inlet protection for all inlets. See sheet C18.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 4 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form. All revisions to calculations shall be resubmitted, signed, sealed and
dated.
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
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= cdengwno
File: E1_vsmp_ review projectname.doc
Planning Division
1. The end of Free State Drive complies with the specified County Code sections. WE have extended
the ROW and the road to the property line as close as possible and we have coordinated with VDOT
on the requirements for a temporary turn around and none are required for SSAR regulations.
2. Open Space A does not include the unresolved spite strip.
9. Owner shall be responsible for care and maintenance of landscaping
10. The tree spacing meets requirements however we have not placed trees in way of sewer easements
which causes spacing to vary in some areas.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via e-mail at Morgan(c�shimp-engineering.com or
Justin Shimp at JustinAshimp-engineering.com or by telephone at 434-227-5140.
Sincerely,
yezc6. 77
Morgan Bell
Page 4
Michelle Roberge
From: Johnathan Newberry
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 7:01 AM
To: Michelle Roberge
Subject: FW: Planning Comments for Free State Run
Attachments: P1_sdp_JTN_FSR_Final.pdf
Michelle,
FYI: It took a lot of research (and some info from Justin), but I did ultimately determine there is a possibility of future
dielietant µst he srlsk Free Sta. s 'ye.J'm sorry I didn't recognize it earlier in the review process.
I've attached my comments on this project.
Thanks,
J.T.
From:Johnathan Newberry
Sent:Sunday, May 17, 2015 11:05 PM
To: 'Justin Shimp, P.E.'
Cc: 'Jess Achenbach'; 'Jess Achenbach'
Subject: Planning Comments for Free State Run
Justin,
Attached are comment from Planning on Free State Run.
Apologies for the delay.
J.T. Newberry
Planner
County of Albemarle, Planning Division
434-296-5832, ext. 3270
1
,
,....„•
`1✓' ,.rrr+„ ♦fir'
SHIMP PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERING
June 5, 2015
Ms. Michelle Roberge
Senior Civil Engineer
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Regarding: Free State Run-Final Site Plan SDP 201500014
WP0201500015
Dear Mr. Newberry,
Thank you for your review of the preliminary site plan for Free State Run. We have revised
the plans per NDS comments dated April 29, 2015. Please find below a detailed comment response letter
describing the changes we have made to each of your comments.
1. The E & S sheets have been removed from the final site plan. • emoVc"
2. We are now installing a groundwater detention system near the location of the spring, and it will collect
any groundwater via the use of an underdrain.
. 3. Existing utility easement has been added to sheet C5.
- 4. The managed slopes have now been labeled.
( 5. We understand that disturbance of the preserved slopes requires rezoning but we will not be disturbing
any of the preserved slopes.
I-6. The 2:1 slopes are now labeled on the grading plan.
.--7. We have added the requested note to the landscape plan.
., 8. After much discussion and review, it is our understanding that a connection is, in fact, feasibler)Se..6 evn*1/ owt
`J' Drainage easements are now being shown on all SWM facilities. t 'i a, • Show. 'UPS
. The whole area is within a SWM easement in open space. " vJMc+lgealto 4 'tn incWet P` .
. SWM facilities and easements are no longer overlapping property lines. 4c4 Ctcar . lar r bini.-n4
Access easements to SWM facilities now being shown. '�+ redo e r'` °" °
" 3. We have shifted the trees away from structure C-5. ✓✓V1(Ma ?
" 14. The trees have been shifted in the biofilter away from outlet Al.
x-15. We understand that a separate Road Plan is required and will provide it.
✓16. We have adjusted the drainage area to include 555 Tyree Lane. - -- --- -- ---t•
17. The drainage area for structure B-3 has been adjusted. However, the drainage area that was used in 41,
c ci, Hydrocad models and spreadsheets was what was provided in the SWM calculations for Belvedere.k�t.. -"!
t —IX'
a 1: The drainage area for structure C-3 has also been adjusted to include some units from Pike Place. e I
Art W B3,� "✓
` '"We will provide an inlet to capture runoff from the previously mentioned swale. �-prem.
v'20. We have updated the location of the inlets and provided two offsite on Free State Road '• ,
21. D3C was mislabeled as D3B on the SWM storm drain map. But the calculations and profiles referring is ...:
9to D3C were correct, but the label has been corrected *tl2 4 /JP
3. Outlets have been updated so that the velocity does not exceed 15 fps. (,i : :q.z.ps 6et4 4We have provided outlet protection for the culvert exiting bioretention pond. 41
on 16' I I COateCi 1334 c(aau ou.c., . ,,,L, , 41 1 ecorr.� �r tc
24. We will show outlet protection on sewer profiles. tbrt40n 1-
25. We have adjusted the low point to be further down the road and the inlet will be at that low point. '±.
26. We have added a curb to the end of Free State Drive.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1. We will provide the E&S and SWM plans.
2. SWM calculations have been removed from SWPPP.
3. The responsible disturber has been updated to be the owner.
4. Section 6F error has been corrected to say County of Albemarle instead of City of
Charlottesville.
5. We realize that the qualified personnel should be determined prior to pre-con, but bids have
not been finalized yet.
6. Owner signature has been provided on certification.
7. Disturbance log has been included.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan
1. An 11x17"copy of the Pollution Prevention Plan will be provided.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
1. The title on stormwater plans have been updated to say"VSMP".
�2. Disturbed acreage will be included on the plan.
3. Per discussion with Michelle Roberge at county meetings, we will be leaving the point of
analyses as they are, but have made adjustments to the plan. Skil G(9(4 1, �' .#t?
4. We have revisited the Hydrocad model and stormwater drainage areas and determined that As, ,
the storage pipe to be adequate at 48" with stone bedding. f� J
5. We went to visit the site and determined that your concerns are valid; we have added a
detention pipe near the spring with an underdrain that will be able to handle any groundwater
flow. Additionally, the stream is intermittent.
6.
a. We have adjusted the pipe exiting the storage pipe to end before the preserved
slope and sheet flow to the stream.
b. We have adjusted the grading behind Lots 27, and 6-8. The preserved slope will not
be disturbed; Contractors will stake points in which they cannot go past
c. See comment 18d.
7. All biofilters have been labeled bioretention.
8. We have adjusted the RRM spreadsheet to include the biofilters as part of the open space
calculation.
9. We have adjusted drainage area 6 so that some of it is piped and bypasses the bioretention
facility.
10. We have gotten rid of the infiltration facility, but the RRM requirements are not quite met, we
will be buying nutrient credits.
11. The Type II 24 hour storm has been corrected in the Hydrocad models.
12. We are no longer stacking the 10 and 100 years, we have only allowed a maximum of 12"
ponding depth.
13. The spillway will be extended to the toe of the bioretention pond.
v14. We have provided the filter media depth for the bioretention pond on sheet C12.
Page 12
15. The underdrains are being shown in both plan and profile view for bioretention pond#1.
However, bioretention pond #2 does not have any to show.
16. Biofilter#2 does have 1' of stone, it has been labeled.
17. We have added two forms of pre-treatment in the form of a pre treatment cell and gravel
diaphragms.
18. Comment has been noted
BioRetention 1
a. The stream has been determined to be intermittent.
b. We have determined the cause of the large gullies and agreed in the meeting that
we would redo the whole stream to get rid of the gullies and reinforce with riprap.
,fp4> ��Igl< c. We have added the extra inlet and piped it to the biofilter bypass area.
T s" 4 d. We have provided a swale to guide water to the biofilter and provided spot
oke'• elevations to indicate where.
e. We have added two forms of pretreatment to the bioretention facility in the form of a
pre-treatment cell and a gravel diaphragm.
Infiltration Facility-We have gotten rid of the infiltration facility altogether and will be
purchasing nutrient credits
19. I have updated stormwater calculations to include the full build out of Lot 19.
20. No longer required, since we are removing the infiltration facility.
D. Erosion &Sediment Control
1. Requested note has been added to the Sequence of Construction
2. DC symbols have been added to sheet C17.
3. We have trimmed the silt fence so that it does not run behind the outlet protection.
4. We believe that the following areas can be resolved:
a. The wall is approximately 4' away from the property line and will not require a grading
easement.
b. Contractors will stake location of retaining wall and will not disturb the adjacent properties.
c. We have adjusted the road so that the area behind Lots 9-14 is less fill.
d. As previously stated, there is less fill, and the wall is 2' away from the property line.
5. We have dropped the grade of the road approximately 3' at the location of sediment basin 2,
allowing the grading to coordinate better.
6. The safety fence has been moved within the limits of disturbance.
7. The diversion dikes have been moved to the back of the proposed lots.
8. The sharp turn has been replaced with a smoother transition.
9. A temporary grading easement has been provided behind Lot 18.
10. The sediment basin detail discrepancies have been corrected.
11. Outlet protection calculations have been labeled on each outlet.
12. We have added the SAF detail to sheet C19.
Page 13
nOV AL/16
41511/17
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: Free State Run-VSMP
Project file number: WP0201500015
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering
Owner or rep.: Free State Partners,LLC
Plan received date: 16 Mar 2015
Date of comments: 27 Apr 2015
Reviewers: Michelle Roberge
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 require 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
1 contain(1)a PPP,(2)an ESCP,(3)a SWMP,and(4)any TMDL measures necessary.
At 1) The SWPP on site should include the approved E&S and SWM plans.
v` 2) Remove the stormwater calcs from the SWPP booklet. The calculations should be a
separate document that is signed,sealed and dated prior to approval.
The person responsible for pollution prevention practices can be the owner for now.It can
le(Ot- be updated later when the operator is known.
4) In section 6 F,the County of Albemarle should be contacted not City of Charlottesville.
5) Qualified personnel and contact info should be determined prior to pre-con.Include with
SWPP on site.
x` 6) Owner can sign certification.Please update.
k' 7) Include a disturbance log.
B.Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1 The PPP should be labeled Pollution Prevention Plan and not just another copy of the E&S
n An plan.Include an 11"x 17"Pollution Prevention Plan map showing concrete washout,porta-
i:o johns,fueling stations,and trash containers.This will be marked up by the contractor as
construction of site progresses.
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
. 4'�' 4S
�1 The title on the plans should state"VSMP." n1 dr - -dIC' (�QIt St
4S
Include the disturbed acreage on the title sheet. C .4LI Ceres 6
3) When looking at adequate channels the ultimate point of analysis can be simplified. This gee.. toWe for
may change depending on how my BMP comments below are addressed. !rlao 4 64 delle(
4) The underground storage under lots 9-14 is not approvable.Please show outside residential '141 " S. '
0
lots. y 0)101 inf4 (O t t C44AJ ,i (A. iv 6 phY4 prt vine
5) 3' gullies are between the critical slopes and lots 1-4.There appears to be a stream. Also,it is 1N �T
too wet on preserved slopes near lot 27,which makes me think there is a spring. Please
��f� clarify as this area has been flagged as wetlands onsite. I will need Army Core approval.
W� i`�f,L/
; `Also note buffers should be shown if this is a perennial stream.This impacts the location of
P tAlt bioretention L ,�-• � � :
e, �`'`` ` C reel ril 1_S. fr ' ryn4eri . _ �Pt 'e f . A/o kb5,
k� 6) : It will be very difficult to a id dis ur ance of preserved slopes. I have identified disturbed
ycP areas below:
a The pipe from the infiltration and detention facility.----54V-0 NO j +11)01 b Iti Lei" (A1.445
0 he grading behind lots 5-8. 1.1;4/ Of l'Alletes}.- 42 i . c: t :f 43
c)If the dam from SWM comment 18d) is provided. f .CttYt . e,�ake ,.Q. t° '
`3) Aft is 414efotiiien4 A�4/' ;/�
Label all biofilters"bioretention." vV revise—
..--'8) The surface area of bioretentions can be counted as forest/open space.Add acreage ofte,,j+/e
bioretention l and 2 to forest in VRRM. Cesr
w
9) Include Drainage Area tabs for B& D. From comment 18 c, bypassing DA#6 may reduce_ c+ 0,,*
the size of bioretention 1. Revise on drainage area tab. c1'tbed ��Ie.'. !, .4 At r)04 DU Curblila. ¢
10) It appears that quality will be met with the 2 bioretentions. The infiltration facility is to
obtain runoff reduction credit. C4,4,44.thi r`,� rive ► tc,. , /viol e ri1 t ►ri .4 t Bahl.
11) Please revise Type II 24 hour storm for the following: __JJ,,�
1 yr=3.04", 10 yr=5.57", 100 yr=9.14". There are discrepancies throughout the report. N __4 +e .
12) Per Design Spec#9 for bioretention,there is no stacking of 10 and 100 year storms.We
allow ponding up to 12" only. Higher storm event should bypass facility or provide a means
of relief via emergency spillway to an adequate channel.
13) Show a spillway to the toe for bioretentions. Show on profiles as well. -or` , 4, to
(4 4-
14) Provide depth of filter media on Bioretention 2. A'A ?1�€e,
.15) Show underdrains for bioretention on plan and profile view. 11 t-.,,' ,•,_ yr-.?' rf" yto 4. �f 41111 J
6) Bioretention 2 does not appear to meet 12" stone minimum requirement. Clarify if soil J j Ca,
infiltration is the intent.Infiltration testing will need to be provided. $ +r i,.IJ'fe% ., Ar.t
17) A pre-treatment cell+another pretreatment method should be shown.`See design table 9.3
in design spec#9. p z (W 4. VV-^4CRres'd,
18) There are concerns with the location of the bioretentions.
Bioretention 1:
a) If the stream is determined to be a perennial stream,there are buffers that need to
be established and location of bioretention 1 will need to shift. The program authority tio(L
can only authorize 50' horizontal buffer disturbance,measured from the most H NO
t Cry
landward. 144er Arent;
ea
b) Even if the stream is determined to be intermittent,the cause of the large gullies trK,.VJ
needs to be determined. Flooding impacts should be addressed so proposed site is notAAA IA
J, r�
s P 4�hj4&toaOj
Po tilt .'r Cans. ,
1 eY.$1" . o.H r s► by
<"`-.----.41t1 bc,reI n1 a
we
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
impacted when developed. For example, maybe an adequate channel needs to be
constructed for the conveyance of the offsite drainage areas(DA#8 and#6).
c) Also,DA#6 should be captured with an inlet and connected to the bypass
stormsewer system from DA#8. Cil Ie,4-
d) The runoff to Cl appears to work if you place a dam to guide channel to
bioretention 1.Again,I want to reiterate,that the cause of the gullies should be
determined otherwise,placing a dam may pose more problems with large impoundment
of water. Note any dam grading will impact preserved slopes.
e) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment.
Bioretention 2: rot- ( l _ t4( eAW J Zi
I
a) Shows underdrains.Where does this outlet to? - 'F gr"/ Yam 1 Pio,
<
644'.' b) It appears overflow from bioretention 2 will be diverted to an infiltration facility.,pok
The location of the two facilities are conveying runoff around Lot 22 and 23,but
problems can still arise with back to back storms of larger events. �-4- A"''4
c) Provide more info on drainage swale to bioretention 2 from cul de sac. /....2-4144- 1
k d) Easements around bioretentions should not be within a proposed lot. For example,
(?)"44.4",.. see bioretention 2. �1 `
. "d VI'to` e) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment. This does not appear to be possible at e-074ii0-64,044
`,f f a _` y the current location.
ilvJ ri,1t .. _''f ' .2n4.+ov , Shap o. 4or, Vfe,If ek 11$* c . i .
Infiltration Facility: "—
a) This makes sense in a sump area. It also appears overflow from the bioretention 2 is
being forced around lots 22-23 to the infiltration area.
b) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment. See table 8.6 of Design Spec#8. It does
not appear to be possible at the location.
c) The conventional infiltration does not meet the 25' building setback from table 8.4.
-\ d) The infiltration should also capture as close to 100% impervious area as possible.At
vthe current location,this does not appear to reflect that\co. .
! e) It is not recommended to have a facility deeper 10' in this confined area.
XtIe Maintenance and repairs will be difficult.
O, ``. f) Provide calcs for sizing of facility. Note target runoff reduction volume should
fr I infiltrate within 36 to 48 hours. It is recommended to use a safety factor of 2 rather than
crp the measure infiltration rate.
g) Provide depth at higher storm events. It is not a good idea to have ponding near
adjacent lots. Conveyance of higher storm events will need to be clarified. This is
another reason to relocate the facility.
h) It does not appear flow from str E2 has been included in calcs for infiltration
faculty. Include flow from E2.
i) Spec the material above pipes. This appears to be soil.Even with 1 yr storm,the
peak elevation will be within this area. (Note that E2 has not yet been included in calcs).
Address.
19) The full buildout for lot 19 should be included in the SWM calcs to account for future
impervious areas.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
20) For the infiltration facility please provide infiltration tests to meet requirements of spec#8.
D.Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 require 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) Add to note 3 on sheet C18,under sequence of construction,"Outlet protection should be
installed prior to any drainage pipes being operational."
✓2) Include DC symbol on sheet C17.
%,..---3) Re-route portion of silt fence so it is not located downstream of outlet protection. See both
outlets from sediment basins.
4) It will be difficult to avoid land disturbance on adjacent parcels.Provide temporary grading
easement or provide letters from adjacent property owners granting permission for offsite
grading. The areas close to the property line are stated below:
ar A' -1kAg. ,./a) The retaining wall north of lot 27.
,, b) The southern edge of SB 1.
V"c) Fill area behindlots 9-14
✓d) The retaining wall near lot 14. See how proposed grades need to tie to existing.
✓5) SB2 grading does not coordinate well with the road grading. Show an inset for the basin
grades that works with the road grades.
r ,
6) SAF should be within the limits of disturbance. /lp rt
7 The intent is to provide erosion control measures so that mass grading can be possible.
However,the location of diversion dikes will make it difficult to grade lot 1, 5-8, 15-18 and
27.Clarify. ; _ r , t., r, '. . u" - , .',
frovtVg v 8) Remove sharp 90 degree turn for diversion dike. S
9)'Provide temporary grading easement to connect sanitary sewer behind lot 18.
10) On chart for sediment basins, please note that A,B,C,D does not coincide with detail.
BIW Clarify and verify grading plan reflects this. Tir 562 9 ���r►+4t ,. rt'$41eGte✓7
4g11) Provide outlet protection calcs. Qrov , „ poi
Z. 5-4r, t.. Si
Size
Show SAF detail. hti . k pl fUrs Gc! : C
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed.For re-submittals please provide 4 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.All revisions to calculations shall be resubmitted,signed, sealed and
dated.
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
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=cdengwpo
bi1ir✓ /
\ _.1
r\' J !, ,‘ \ t ;\--, .,_„-'; " \‘‘V\ V
\ 1
\ 411/11° ‘,.,
_.4r
l
N $ `-44',E G) s,
at` ` PIC.i.i V \ , a,a�
3k,•,1.if1g.S
l'0-
.i1lkk
l',i-4>'''
-:-
-i-,
11
{lA,t,,,,
/` s. _ 0 4 4'' r/itA
11 ivk,0':.
V
�' /�jt�y
,t.,-1t1"-i'
-`17 . 'fitly/ VI'
l- Af°1 \ , gif foe4 , .;2'-i 1 *
'' Ne leo , I ; _, , tt
' i • i gi ` i I V i'
i "i *.i m:1)AI; 11411
. + y•' , i-
A\ ',-441, , <-9
11411°"1:4-1°11k,Alir-effirti* -----.6*-.....„1/4 ikris,\Aff,:: , ,,,,
--' 4. -1" 1"k. s ,16:74‘N‘444wkiik_ 411 lItt,, i ‘i.
4, i N.s. I..1 t
N\ / / . ..._.40:14111 ,.., i )
., ' v,;40 _ r.
I/
0
0
. _ 031, 1 ; -
�,., , ,._,.. ,4 :j
r5 v - �"'A 4 ---
L,_
LORtN:;kUN
` "\ .,
Sai•
. ,...,.c.
.,.,
1 1
)11 •-,.:,.
- . 8
./..cl,
_r,..
k4,
, !
\ _ _
. li ' • \ RP'"ft* .. ,-.7,-
vp.,
r 6 4a , .,1.,.4. ,
* ;.----..,/ '.- ,..1 di 4P ' •
i Is 61 le Ix • 4'. /* o'' . 41- * , ' ,
• II --.. s h--, _ is
VII el 0 ,•••••:• ..-.L.-., ...4,11.4. , --.:___ ,' .
Na
4,,,.<\\)4t„ .., • ift s 7 r.'260:, L('''711-- s. --..." ---,,____„_
-4, 4 - I. •
/ ' 114). .;1. .. 4 Zie•L')A ,.:z,•4 ,
•?4,
k., e ., „,Q . v. ,_, • .. \-- ,i.-- "7. If
N , ,. ,0.4Z";11'11h-17 w' $9.op 44 ...t.(2, i - , 4"0
--t 0 a I" '-...Y 44I, ...?).,
I, (.,
Fo \s,__ - ii,
sS, ;AZ' --1'31$ I a 'r c C t r.
Ct) V • ,.
‘V\. ' 4 '-.6.':',,.1 ,--, • 0P, ,
cat• ""
,
we*
1 • ›.... 1
- .Att tali o ,1/4, • 7,2?)4 ‘ -.... '
•- .? ''..,ot`..'4; '• *.#;(11-61:\ ,•11:::... toll:, u.-Ili , 4, -.., ,...,. . tC, (.. :.:?
'‘-'4 4P 0 •%. ;>1. *' ''''''..-.. - ''' " -o--:-.Cq t 1'‘"-'1
• iii‘ t ' e0:90„.i•A
. -4,c,.., , -r . - e - •f .0 7Tovdt4‘,...\--to-- • ilk ?.,,,
/•-•(,-, \.,r,„, ,,,.4., •/.. ..4 ,e,' 4:!.- '-'1? - , 4:1 ."4111
,-. \--ci •-'-'0 -:*A ui ii.„Ni...,e-f., r—wo..,.. :I, 0,- \ -,i,,, . 4
4 N.:•;..•.7,)7"' ‘\ 0'
lb," "'''" - I.. , t":7 *14' "' , Ar •••' ri .„,..,
*' - \6 — I. .-! !4----4* 407 4 Cl-k- 4\,• 1A:1)' 41 4 4 4,V( A-Cr'is 11,
•9_,4,.....
•0
,/ • .. -
0
40' ';'‹;• 111
Ir tt ---.:•—ei. - 4. li,
, 1,%• •cs tor.4: 11 Q- :II .4 11
, .L.0„.....\
..."'
6L........
... 40.. % / './), '''`'--•- -.,,4,... 4,/
C4--- G -,-
4.17 • I-- . Nra 1;-11' ''.;;;;;•g''''''''' ''--7----7-'-'-'.:- "Z.*:"0:'....//171"..--"+"•-..-4 ft."1..... -
' ...''''...*..L.......:* 10 p '.----- .--1- 1.1.••=,...-,...:) . •-••• .....: .z. 0,.
6r0,00:a ol,to 0 30;4 "".."› .•.'-;*1
bnY4 11 .46 • . `•••••• 0,....," .... a
--:.-
' '''t •/;4)\, .44; '71
4 - 42
4 0
ID ' 0 •maw .—
(4 412t S.
foe
a
•
,0a.. ..
4" 4 '''
;iis,,,,„›,,,
,---, ,
- t, _- - ,.....,, - -= •-,:i. c
r,
0 0 -----„,. ... -,
, .
• moo '7
is
.0,
0 46 c
Iffra.....-
�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
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit plan review
Free State Run - VSMP
WP0201500015
Shimp Engineering
Free State Partners, LLC
16 Mar 2015
27 Apr 2015
Michelle Roberge
County Code section 17 -410 and Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:34 require 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) The SWPP on site should include the approved E &S and SWM plans.
2) Remove the stormwater calcs from the SWPP booklet. The calculations should be a
separate document that is signed, sealed and dated prior to approval.
3) The person responsible for pollution prevention practices can be the owner for now. It can
be updated later when the operator is known.
4) In section 6 F, the County of Albemarle should be contacted not City of Charlottesville.
5) Qualified personnel and contact info should be determined prior to pre -con. Include with
SWPP on site.
6) Owner can sign certification. Please update.
7) Include a disturbance log.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1) The PPP should be labeled Pollution Prevention Plan and not just another copy of the E &S
plan. Include an 11 "x 17" Pollution Prevention Plan map showing concrete washout, porta-
johns, fueling stations, and trash containers. This will be marked up by the contractor as
construction of site progresses.
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
1) The title on the plans should state "VSMP."
2) Include the disturbed acreage on the title sheet.
3) When looking at adequate channels the ultimate point of analysis can be simplified. This
may change depending on how my BMP comments below are addressed.
4) The underground storage under lots 9 -14 is not approvable. Please show outside residential
lots.
5) 3' gullies are between the critical slopes and lots 1 -4. There appears to be a stream. Also, it is
too wet on preserved slopes near lot 27, which makes me think there is a spring. Please
clarify as this area has been flagged as wetlands onsite. I will need Army Core approval.
Also note buffers should be shown if this is a perennial stream. This impacts the location of
bioretention 1.
6) It will be very difficult to avoid disturbance of preserved slopes. I have identified disturbed
areas below:
a) The pipe from the infiltration and detention facility.
b) The grading behind lots 5 -8.
c) If the dam from SWM comment 18d) is provided.
7) Label all biofilters " bioretention."
8) The surface area of bioretentions can be counted as forest /open space. Add acreage of
bioretention 1 and 2 to forest in VRRM.
9) Include Drainage Area tabs for B & D. From comment 18 c, bypassing DA #6 may reduce
the size of bioretention 1. Revise on drainage area tab.
10) It appears that quality will be met with the 2 bioretentions. The infiltration facility is to
obtain runoff reduction credit.
11) Please revise Type 11 24 hour storm for the following:
1 yr= 3.04 ", 10 yr= 5.57 ", 100 yr= 9.14 ". There are discrepancies throughout the report.
12) Per Design Spec #9 for bioretention, there is no stacking of 10 and 100 year storms. We
allow ponding up to 12" only. Higher storm event should bypass facility or provide a means
of relief via emergency spillway to an adequate channel.
13) Show a spillway to the toe for bioretentions. Show on profiles as well.
14) Provide depth of filter media on Bioretention 2.
15) Show underdrains for bioretention on plan and profile view.
16) Bioretention 2 does not appear to meet 12" stone minimum requirement. Clarify if soil
infiltration is the intent. Infiltration testing will need to be provided.
17) A pre- treatment cell + another pretreatment method should be shown. See design table 9.3
in design spec #9.
18) There are concerns with the location of the bioretentions.
Bioretention 1:
a) If the stream is determined to be a perennial stream, there are buffers that need to
be established and location of bioretention 1 will need to shift. The program authority
can only authorize 50' horizontal buffer disturbance, measured from the most
landward.
b) Even if the stream is determined to be intermittent, the cause of the large gullies
needs to be determined. Flooding impacts should be addressed so proposed site is not
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
impacted when developed. For example, maybe an adequate channel needs to be
constructed for the conveyance of the offsite drainage areas (DA #8 and #6).
C) Also, DA #6 should be captured with an inlet and connected to the bypass
stormsewer system from DA #8.
d) The runoff to C1 appears to work if you place a dam to guide channel to
bioretention 1. Again, I want to reiterate, that the cause of the gullies should be
determined otherwise, placing a dam may pose more problems with large impoundment
of water. Note any dam grading will impact preserved slopes.
e) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment.
Bioretention 2:
a) Shows underdrains. Where does this outlet to?
b) It appears overflow from bioretention 2 will be diverted to an infiltration facility.
The location of the two facilities are conveying runoff around Lot 22 and 23, but
problems can still arise with back to back storms of larger events.
C) Provide more info on drainage swale to bioretention 2 from cul de sac.
d) Easements around bioretentions should not be within a proposed lot. For example,
see bioretention 2.
e) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment. This does not appear to be possible at
the current location.
Infiltration Facility:
a) This makes sense in a sump area. It also appears overflow from the bioretention 2 is
being forced around lots 22 -23 to the infiltration area.
b) This facility needs 2 forms of pretreatment. See table 8.6 of Design Spec #8. It does
not appear to be possible at the location.
C) The conventional infiltration does not meet the 25' building setback from table 8.4.
d) The infiltration should also capture as close to 100% impervious area as possible. At
the current location, this does not appear to reflect that.
e) It is not recommended to have a facility deeper 10' in this confined area.
Maintenance and repairs will be difficult.
f) Provide calcs for sizing of facility. Note target runoff reduction volume should
infiltrate within 36 to 48 hours. It is recommended to use a safety factor of 2 rather than
the measure infiltration rate.
g) Provide depth at higher storm events. It is not a good idea to have ponding near
adjacent lots. Conveyance of higher storm events will need to be clarified. This is
another reason to relocate the facility.
h) It does not appear flow from str E2 has been included in calcs for infiltration
faculty. Include flow from E2.
i) Spec the material above pipes. This appears to be soil. Even with 1 yr storm, the
peak elevation will be within this area. (Note that E2 has not yet been included in calcs).
Address.
19) The full buildout for lot 19 should be included in the SWM calcs to account for future
impervious areas.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
20) For the infiltration facility please provide infiltration tests to meet requirements of spec #8.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP)
Virginia Code §62.1- 44.15:55 require 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) Add to note 3 on sheet C18, under sequence of construction, "Outlet protection should be
installed prior to any drainage pipes being operational."
2) Include DC symbol on sheet C17.
3) Re -route portion of silt fence so it is not located downstream of outlet protection. See both
outlets from sediment basins.
4) It will be difficult to avoid land disturbance on adjacent parcels. Provide temporary grading
easement or provide letters from adjacent property owners granting permission for offsite
grading. The areas close to the property line are stated below:
a) The retaining wall north of lot 27.
b) The southern edge of SB 1.
C) Fill area behind lots 9 -14
d) The retaining wall near lot 14. See how proposed grades need to tie to existing.
5) SB2 grading does not coordinate well with the road grading. Show an inset for the basin
grades that works with the road grades.
6) SAF should be within the limits of disturbance.
7) The intent is to provide erosion control measures so that mass grading can be possible.
However, the location of diversion dikes will make it difficult to grade lot 1, 5 -8, 15 -18 and
27. Clarify.
8) Remove sharp 90 degree turn for diversion dike.
9) Provide temporary grading easement to connect sanitary sewer behind lot 18.
10) On chart for sediment basins, please note that A, B, C, D does not coincide with detail.
Clarify and verify grading plan reflects this.
11) Provide outlet protection calcs.
12) Show SAF detail.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 4 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form. All revisions to calculations shall be resubmitted, signed, sealed and
dated.
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
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;
htip://www.albemarle.org/deptfonns.asp?department--cdengwpo
File: E1_vsmp_ review projectname.doc