Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201600009 Review Comments Mitigation Plan 2016-07-12COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 VSMP Plan review Project: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16 & 17/18 (SWM, ESC, Mitigation Plan) Plan preparer: Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc 914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 ageorgena,roudabush.com; bledbetternroudabush.com Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100] Dave Brockman, davegoldtrailvilla eg com Reviewer: John Anderson—beha!LofEn inQ eering Stream Buffer MitiLyation Plan (RGA Received date: 7 Jun 2016 (Rev. 1) 22 Jun 2016 Date of comments: 20 Jun 2016 (Rev. 1) 12 Jul 2016 ARyroval pending Attorney's Office guidance relative to Easements SWPPP, SWMP, ESCP not reviewed with this Application —NA [Ref. CV for prior plan review comments: SWPPP, SWMP, ESCP] WP0201600009 A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) —NA B. VSMP: SWPPP: Stormwater Management Plan (WP0201600009) —NA C. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion Control Plan (WP0201600009) —NA D. Mitigation Plan (WP02016-00009) (Also, email: J. Anderson to County Attorneys' Office, 7/12/2016 7:28 AM) The mitigation plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-406. 1. Include `WP0201600009' in Mitigation Plan title. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 2. Mitigation Area labels: misprint (Mitigtaion) —please revise. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3. Ensure Area 132-1 will not be impacted by Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Recommend signs visible to the public that advertise March Mountain Properties' stream buffer impact minimization, and stream buffer preservation, conservation, and restoration efforts. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Add Note (Mitigation Area 132-1 site): "Area 132-1 will not be planted until Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project is complete. Area 132-1 should be planted in the fall of the year of completion of the sanitary sewer extension project, or the spring of the following year. Land disturbance associated with WP0201600009 must be stabilized (per Approved ESCP) without regard to Mitigation Plan in any area that may be affected by Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project." Contact Engineering Div. if any questions (Frank Pohl, County Engineer). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 6. Ensure vehicular access to SWM Facilities L-2, L-3, S-3, S-12 will not create additional stream buffer impacts, or affect proposed mitigation areas (especially Areas Al, A2, A3,132-1, Cl). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Recommend include plant totals for each plant schedule table. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 8. Add Note: "Minimum survival required after two growing seasons is 490 plants per Acre, or 1,299 plants. This plan establishes nine Mitigation Areas. 1,299 is a plan -wide figure. 70% plant survival does not apply to any single Mitigation area. Provided 1,299 plants survive at the end of two growing seasons, the plant survival requirement is met. Mitigation plan bond amount may be reduced for plants that survive two growing seasons. Mortality that reduces survival to less than 1,299 plants must be replaced with tree or shrub container -grown seedlings, per plant and planting requirements (specifications) listed at Stream - buffer Mitigation General Planting Notes (sheet 3). These notes apply to replacement plants, as well as initial plants." (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. Add Note: "County access to each Mitigation Area during normal business hours to inspect or execute mitigation measures (re -plantings, for example) will be provided through Easements." (Rev. 1) Addressed, but without reference to easements. (Also, items 10, 11, 12, below). 10. Establish (Mitigation Plan) Easements that correspond with and preserve Mitigation Areas identified in the plan. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Applicant's comment response referred to County Attorney's Office. 11. Establish Access Easements that grant (county) access to each Area identified in the plan. This does not mean vehicular access, but near -vehicle approach with remaining terrain traversable by an individual of median age in good health. Access easement terrain should not be rugged. (Rev. 1) Partially Addressed. Applicant's response referred to County Attorney's Office. 12. Submit Easements for legal review and approval prior to and as condition of Final Site Plan approval, or Final Plat approval, for Lots /units in Old Trail Village, blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30. (Rev. 1) Not Addressed. Referred to County Attorney's Office [email: 7/12/2016 7:28 AM]. 13. Note —It is important to limit replanting cycles. 1,299 is a fixed end -of -2nd -growing -season requirement. If, for example, the total at the end of the second season is 1,249 (shortfall =50), then 50 replacements must survive, meaning it may be best to plant more than 50 to ensure that, in the example, at least 50 survive at the end of the second replacement growing season. Please call Frank Pohl, County Engineer -434.296-5832 x7914, if any questions. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 14. Note —Mitigation Plan must be bonded. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 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 (received). One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates (under courtesy review /draft ESCP bond estimate shared with Applicant, 20 -Jun) 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. 6/20/2016 6:24 AM VAR100043 was modified by VDEQ on 16 -Mar 2016 to include blocks 10, 16 & 17/18, 27.13 Ac. area of disturbance. County and Applioant have disetissed that onee Old Trail Stomiwater- Master- Plan d. 5 Feb 2016 is revised in response to disetission 17 Mar-, is s4seqiiently r-eviewed and aecepted by County and Mar -eh Mountain Pr-apeFfies, that a pre eans"etion fneeting fnay be r-equested to r-eeeive a Grading PeRnit for- blooks 10, 16 & 17,119. Initial site plan (SDP201500028) for these blocks was approved 7/24/15. Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan (MP) refines Zoning Application (ZMA200400024) plan grading. Once County and Applicant accept revised MP, 18-8.5.5.4 allows County to issue a Grading Permit for site preparation. Pre -requisites to Grading permit include 6 items: i) Parks & Recreation Easements presumed by MP to locate L3 (or perform grading) on Alb. County property; ii) rev. 5 -Feb 2016 MP; iii) SWPPP; iv) slight revisions listed at #9, #21, and #24; v) ESC bond; and, vi) estimated date that detailed final SWM designs for L3, S3, 5-12 will be submitted. (21 Jun 2016) Early Grading: Ref. email 5/26/2016 10:03 AM: D. Brockman to J. Anderson. Also: email, County to Dave Brockman, Bill Ledbetter, and Leslie Tate: 6/16/2016 7:48 AM. Early Grading is unfortunately not an option. [Review error.] WPO201600009 ESCP is approved Also, email: county to Applicant, May 23, 2016 9:07 AM). WPO201600009 SWMP (Stantec) is Conditionally—Approved (19 Jun 2016). Mitigation plan: under review. Once WPO201600009 receives Final Approval, once ESCP, SWMP, and Mitigation Plan bonds are posted, Applicant may request pre -construction conference by completing a form —all state fees have been paid. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and remaining fee to be paid (county portion). 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 Grading permit will be issued so that work may begin. County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering; hLtp://www.albemarle.org/dotfonns.asp?departtnent--cdengmTo Thankyou New tel. # : 434.872-4501 —x3069 File: W002016000090TV blocks 10, 16, 17, 18_VSMP Mitigation 071216revl PHONE(434)977.0205 InFAX(434)296.5220 ;o,' FAX ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL.CORPORATION LAND SURVEYING Serving l itxinia Siam 19% ENG iNUM NG 914 MON"TICELLO ROAI) LAND PLANNING CHARUWITSVILLE.VIRGINIA WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER.LS. 22902 J.CUNT HARMON.LS. DAVID M.ROBINSON.P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN.L.S. AMMY M.GEORGE.L.A. BRIAN D.JAMISON.LS. KRISTOPHER C.WINTERS.LS. June 22, 2016 John Anderson, Civil Engineer II County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,VA 22902 Regarding: WPO-201600009 Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18&30 Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan Dear Mr.Anderson, I have reviewed your comments from June 20, 2016.You can find the individual responses to those comments below. 1. Include'WP0201600009'in Mitigation Plan title. I have included the application number WP0201600009 in the plan title on the Cover Sheet. 2. Mitigation Area labels: misprint(Mitigtaion) -please revise. The misspelling of"Mitigation"has been corrected in the area labels. 3. Ensure Area B2-1 will not be impacted by Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project. The note suggested in Comment#5 has been added to the plan(Sheet 2) to notify the contractor that the Mitigation Area B2-1 must not be planted until the sanitary sewer extension along Slabtown Branch is complete. 4. Recommend signs visible to the public that advertise March Mountain Properties'stream buffer impact minimization,and stream buffer preservation, conservation,and restoration efforts. Signs will be added at the mitigation areas to indicate that these are natural areas for preservation,conservation and/or restoration efforts. 5. Add Note (Mitigation Area B2-1 site): "Area B2-1 will not be planted until Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project is complete.Area B2-1 should be planted in the fall of the year of completion of the sanitary sewer extension project,or the spring of the following year. Land disturbance associated with WP0201600009 must be stabilized (per Approved ESCP) without WP0201600009 6/22/2016 1 regard to Mitigation Plan in any area that may be affected by Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project." Contact Engineering Div. if any questions (Frank Pohl,County Engineer). The requested note has been added to the plan (Sheet 2). 6. Ensure vehicular access to SWM Facilities L-2, L-3,S-3,S-12 will not create additional stream buffer impacts,or affect proposed mitigation areas (especially Areas Al,A2,A3, B2-1,C1). The vehicular access to each of the SWM facilities has been designed with each facility so that additional land disturbance is not necessary.The limits of disturbance for the construction of the SWM facilities have been laid out to be on the conservative side to avoid the need to revise the stream buffer disturbance area. 7. Recommend include plant totals for each plant schedule table. The Plant Schedule Tables have been updated to reflect the total number of plants provided within each Mitigation Area. 8. Add Note: "Minimum survival required after two growing seasons is 490 plants per Acre, or 1,299 plants.This plan establishes nine Mitigation Areas. 1,299 is a plan-wide figure. 70%plant survival does not apply to any single Mitigation area. Provided 1,299 plants survive at the end of two growing seasons,the plant survival requirement is met. Mitigation plan bond amount may be reduced for plants that survive two growing seasons. Mortality that reduces survival to less than 1,299 plants must be replaced with tree or shrub container-grown seedlings,per plant and planting requirements (specifications) listed at Stream-buffer Mitigation General Planting Notes (sheet 3). These notes apply to replacement plants,as well as initial plants." The requested note has been added to the plan (Sheet 2). 9. Add Note: "County access to each Mitigation Area during normal business hours to inspect or execute mitigation measures (re-plantings, for example)will be provided through Easements." The following note was added to the Cover Sheet:"The developer will provide the County access to each mitigation area during normal business hours to inspect or execute mitigation measures.Refer below for directions to each individual areas: Mitigation Areas Al,A2 and A3 -Via Rowcross Street to the maintenance access for SWM facility L3 or through the walking path connection located near this SWM facility on Rowcross Street. Mitigation area B2-1-Via Rowcross Street to the maintenance access for SWM Facility S12 or through the walking path connection located at the intersection of Rowcross Street and Fielding Run Drive. Mitigation Area C1-Via Golf Drive to the walking path near the intersection of Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive. Mitigation Area D-Via Golf View Drive or Orion Lane to the walking path to Upper Ballard Pond. Mitigation Areas E,F and G-Via the cart paths from the Old Trail Golf Club. 10. Establish (Mitigation Plan) Easements that correspond with and preserve Mitigation Areas identified in the plan. WP0201600009 6/22/2016 2 SOB .**11101 We will not be adding easements around the mitigation areas.All of the mitigation areas fall within the 100'WPO/Stream Buffer. 11. Establish Access Easements that grant(county) access to each Area identified in the plan.This does not mean vehicular access,but near-vehicle approach with remaining terrain traversable by an individual of median age in good health.Access easement terrain should not be rugged. We will not be adding access easements for the mitigation areas.The Mitigations Areas A1-3,B2-1 are located within a Stormwater Management Easement that allows for access to these areas.Mitigation Area D is located within an Open Space that allows for access. Mitigation Areas E-G are located within the Old Trail Golf Club.Each of the mitigation areas are accessible through near-vehicle approach with an easily traversable path system. 12. Submit Easements for legal review and approval prior to and as condition of Final Site Plan approval,or Final Plat approval,for Lots/units in Old Trail Village,blocks 10, 16, 17, 18&30. As we will not be creating easements for the reasons stated above,their approval should not be a condition of the Final Site Plan approval. 13. Note-It is important to limit replanting cycles. 1,299 is a fixed end-of-2nd-growing-season requirement. If,for example,the total at the end of the second season is 1,249 (shortfall=50), then 50 replacements must survive,meaning it may be best to plant more than 50 to ensure that,in the example,at least 50 survive at the end of the second replacement growing season. Please call Frank Pohl, County Engineer-434.296-5832 -x7914, if any questions. A note has been added to the plan to suggest that the owner/contractor plant limit the replanting cycles(Sheet 2). 14. Note-Mitigation Plan must be bonded. Acknowledged. If you have any questions or comments,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Ammy George WPO201600009 6/22/2016 3 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 Plan review Project: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16 & 17/18 (SWM, ESC, Mitigation Plan) Plan preparer: Jeremy Fox, Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc 914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, jfox(&roudabush.com; a e�orge(a�roudabush.com; bledbetter ct,roudabush.com J. Glenn Muckley —Stantec /5209 Center Street Williamsburg VA 23188-2680 Glenn. muckley(a,stantec. com Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100] Dave Brockman, davegoldtrailvilla eg com Reviewer: John Anderson—beha!LofEn inQ eering SWM Plan (Stantec) Received date: 23 May 2016 Date of comments: 19 Jun 2016 —Conditionally -Approved ESC Plan (RGA Received date: 11 Feb 2016 (Rev. 1) 18 Mar 2016 (Rev. 2) 13 May 2016 Final 23 May 2016 Date of comments: 6 Mar 2016 (Rev. 1) 3 Apr 2016 (Rev. 2) 21 May (e-mail: 5/21/2016 9:20 PM) Final 21 Jun 2016 —Approved Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan (RGA) Received date: 7 Jun 2016 Date of comments: 20 Jun 2016 WP0201600009 A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary. 1. Please submit SWPPP for blocks 10, 16 & 17/18 —include SWPPP Exhibit. Pattern after prior SWPPP submittals, prior blocks. Permit Registration Statement and VAR100043 are current and incl. 27.13 Ac. area of disturbance proposed with these blocks. Please call if any_questions. (Final) Addressed. Ref B. Ledbetter email: 5/23/2016 10:20 AM Attached /Also, OTV SWPPP at: L•\DEPT\Community Development\Engineering Division\anderson\documents_MayJun20l6 Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 9 B. VSMP: SWPPP: Stormwater Management Plan (WPO201600009) VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP. Final SWM Plan dated May 20, 2016 was received May 23, 2016 (SWMDesign Summary, East Side /Stantec, Williamsburg, VA) Stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403. (19 Jun 2016) SWM Plan Conditionally -Approved. Please address comments below for Final Approval: [Review comments /Conditional Approval also sent as email, 6/19/2016 5:07 PM.] 1. Title sheet a. Recommend list VAR100043 on this /future SWM Plan Title sheets. DEQ SWCGP database lists VAR100043 details, and this permit must be modified to include any Additional land disturbance projects at Old Trail (except Slabtown Sewer Ext. project —A linear project). Note: SWCGP CGP VAR100043 details: Comment ("Total and disturbed area increased from 91.71 ac."); Est. Area to be disturbed (110.83 Ac.*); Application complete date (03/08/2016); Expiration date (06/30/2019); Technical Criteria (Part 2 C — Previously Permitted); Permit Writer (DEQ — Shantelle Nicholson); Modified on 03/16/2016; Additional (Record created 03/04/2016 by John Anderson). Note*: 03/16/2016 Modification includes Area of Land Disturbance for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18, and 30. Blocks 5, 20, and 21 are not (at this time) covered by VAR100043. b. Revise Project Narrative, 2 /2.1 —Existing 2.11% impervious area (ZMA) yields load =37.32 lb (TP) per year. Part IIC applies. Part IIC requires SWM design (via Master Plan) limit post - developed (development -wide) discharge to the Average Watershed (16%), or 104.98 lb TP/yr. Proposed impervious Area (Ave. for 237.35 Ac.) =43.45%. Proposed pollutant load (43.45%) =238.66 lb TP/yr. Master Plan design removes 133.68 lb TP/yr, to comply with state stormwater Part IIC (water quality) requirements. See Table 7, Master Plan. 2. Sheet 2: Recommend DISCLAIMER: Area (Ac) and Curve Numbers for this plan vary slightly from Master Plan Appendix C Hydrology Support Information d. April 4, 2016. Slight variation in Area /CN values relates to slightly imprecise analysis possible with Master Plan (MP) estimate of future development (See Old Trail Stormwater Master Plan Update, Accepted Apr. 12/Signed: Apr. 25, 2016). This and future reviews should not expect Areas /CNs for distinct development blocks to align with the MP precisely. Applicant cannot force values that do not match, to match. Rather, Stantec presents with this SWMP (blocks 10, 16, 17, 18, 30) the most accurate information available. Review recognizes that slight variation between SWMP and MP DA or CN values (DA IDs 1013, 1213, 1513) has no effect on compliance. CNs are virtually identical: 61.54, 61.00, 60.71 (SWM Plan: 1013, 1213, 1513) vs. 61.00 (each DA) in the MP. Reviewers should be alert to effect on compliance if discrepancies exist between Master Plan and SWM plans submitted for discrete blocks. 3. Sheet 8 —L-2 Retention basin DA listed as 23.93 Ac.; Compliance tracking ledger submitted with this Plan: 23.81 Ac. —Revise for consistency. 4. Sheet 4 —Label Rowcross St. to orient those unfamiliar with Old Trail Village. 5. Sheet 4 —Detail, S-3 High Flow Bypass Structure detail: While image is useful, this series of images and text are adapted from VA stream restoration design guide. Reference to streambed, streambank, bank full, meander, head boulders, vane, scour pool, and VSRDM (VA Stream Restoration Design Manual?? —LINK: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/Publications/BMPGuide.pdf ) will utterly confuse. It is not possible to adapt this stream restoration detail to SWM purposes and expect contractors, inspectors, or even bypass to succeed. Provide revised High Flow Bypass Structure detail that supports design aims (including but not limited to): type /size material/s; plan /profile; construction specifications; construction guidelines; design elevations. 6. Sheet 4 —Show and label existing contours at least 50 -ft beyond property line. S-3 lies in close proximity to PL. 7. Sheets 4, 6, 8, 10 —5-3, 5-12, L-2, L-3 Grading & Layout: Provide show and label vehicular SWM Facility Access. Provide smooth non -curb mount unimpeded off-street access /parking /turnaround. Ref. ACDSM, Sec. 5 (text image, below) 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 9 Rcst N1anage mcnt Practices Fpr Stormwatcr Management: All practices must have adequate vehicle access: 10' width graded at less than 20%. Anything over 20% must be surfaced with gravel or pavement. Access must be to all structures and Forebay cleanout areas. Easements must be provided over all access and facilities, to accompany deeds and agreements as available on the county website; http;//www. al bemarle.urg/deptforms. asp?depanment--cdena"po Sheets 4, 6, 8, 10 —Provide permanent aesthetic physical barrier to trespass. Provide signs that prohibit trespass swimming. Warn of drowning hazard at each detention /retention facility. Each facility must be clearly posted: SWM Facility. Private Property. No Trespassing. Etc. Sheet 5 —Provide S3A-S3A' profile elevations for: bioretention /detention basin floor, Elev. of each riser base ( X 2 risers). Please review /provide elevations for design features that may be required for water quality -quantity treatment, inspection, or construction. Please coordinate with RGA on ESC Plan. Sheet 4/5 —Provide dimensions for outlet protection to aid review, bonding, construction, and inspection — Ref. to VESCH Std. & Spec. 3.18 is inadequate (S-3-1, S-3-2, S-3-3). Sheet 6 —S-12 High Flow Bypass Structure —Revise per comment #5., above. Sheet 6 —Label Rowcross St. to orient /aid review. Sheet 6/7 —Provide dimensions for outlet protection to aid review, bonding, construction, and inspection — Ref. to VESCH Std. & Spec. 3.18 is inadequate (S-12-1, S-12-2, S-12-3). Sheet 6/7 —Recommend SWM -1 Riser Elevation match ESCP Sediment Basin #3 Crest Elev. =647.20, if possible. Reviewer is positioned to Approve ESCP (blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30). Though Riser elevations needn't match, if possible, it simplifies construction and may minimize expense. Sheets 5'7 " 7, 11 —Each detention basin profile includes identical SWM -1 Riser label. For separate facilities, this is confusing. Recommend distinct Riser labels for each facility. Sheet 7 —Provide S 12A -S 12A' profile elevations for: bioretention /detention basin floor, Elev. of each riser base ( X 2 risers). Sheet 7 —Top of berm, S-12 detention basin, is =650.00'. WP0201600009, RGA ESCP top of dam, sediment basin 3 =650.20'. Revise top of berm to match top of dam since sediment basin (RGA, sheet 4) and S-12 (Stantec, sheet 6) grading are otherwise nearly identical. Sheet 7 —Revise profile DI -1 (biofilter) Riser crest elevation to 648.5'. 664 �.noenoroseo ria s 2.857 SF SIORETENTION FACILITY . . . . . . . ROPOSEO GRADE PIOMTER FLOOR =648 FT . . .660 30INCii RCA 644 2 YR. ME 640 EVEL SPREADER PROPOSED RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECT $,12.1 636 P@RvESCH M. AND$PEC. 91S - .. •! •. - .� CLASS I RiPRAP 121NCH RCP MM. LEPTN=7.7 FT y i _ T — INV OP•Md33 FT �--.-• INV DOM MWOO FT 632 PROPOSED CONCRETE � e / CyZBrF F Sheet 8 —L-2 Drop Structure ap) —Revise per comment #5., above. Also: this detail appears to apply to structures S-1 through S-4. Replacement detail should clarify which plan view structures are detailed. Sheet 9 —No splash rocks or armoring is shown downstream of Structure S5. Recommend armor to prevent erosion at this point. Erosion at this point may migrate upstream and undermine Structures S 1 —S4. Sheet 9 —Provide L2A-L2A' profile elevations for: Each of 4 step pools, retention basin floor, elev. of riser base, elev. of 8" drain pipe (if known). NV IJP+ 651.60 ISTING GRADE INV DOWN = 549.10 FT 654 DIA RISER TOP OF WALL •651.90 FT CREST ELEVATION - 656 FT 652 ERM ELEV -660-00 FT 10OYR. WSE 648 j 7 100 YR. WSE 10 YR. ME 644 2 YR. ME 640 EVEL SPREADER PROPOSED RIPRAP OUTLET PROTECT $,12.1 636 P@RvESCH M. AND$PEC. 91S - .. •! •. - .� CLASS I RiPRAP 121NCH RCP MM. LEPTN=7.7 FT y i _ T — INV OP•Md33 FT �--.-• INV DOM MWOO FT 632 PROPOSED CONCRETE � e / CyZBrF F Sheet 8 —L-2 Drop Structure ap) —Revise per comment #5., above. Also: this detail appears to apply to structures S-1 through S-4. Replacement detail should clarify which plan view structures are detailed. Sheet 9 —No splash rocks or armoring is shown downstream of Structure S5. Recommend armor to prevent erosion at this point. Erosion at this point may migrate upstream and undermine Structures S 1 —S4. Sheet 9 —Provide L2A-L2A' profile elevations for: Each of 4 step pools, retention basin floor, elev. of riser base, elev. of 8" drain pipe (if known). Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 9 22. Sheet 9 —Label existing grade (L2A-L2A' profile). Note: Existing grade is shown using solid line type on Sheets 5 and? (S3A-S3A' and S12A-S12A') —this is ok, but dash line conventional. 23. Sheet 8/9 —Provide dimensions for outlet protection /stone step complex pools to aid review, bonding, construction, and inspection (L-2-1; 4 stepped pools). 24. Sheet 10 —Label one or more streets. 25. Sheet 10 —Ref. WP0201600009, RGA, sheet 6. Although County is positioned to approve WP0201600009 ESCP today, RGA may provide slip sheet/s at Applicant's discretion without review at no expense to revise 92.00' L 7.61% 30" RCP shown on ESCP sheet 6. If pipe were instead 93' L w/ invert IN =628.00' (3' lower) and invert OUT =622.00' (2' lower), then ESCP and SWMP would match. With routings dependent on 1-6" orifice at @ 630.00' (will not work with ESCP pipe design), it may be simpler to revise ESCP than the SWMP. Recommend revise ESCP to match SWMP, if possible. Note: if revise to match Stantec plan, rev. ESCP pipe slope (30"RCP) =6.45%. 26. Sheet 10/11 —Provide dimensions for outlet protection (L-3-1, L-3-2). 27. Sheet 10 -110' L 36" RCP between MH -1 and MH -1 [please re -label one MH as MH -2], 11desip—ned to route high-flow, must be shown in profile with sufficient detail to review /evaluate design effect, and to understand high flow bypass. 28. Sheet 10 —Provide bioretention sizing calculation —Ref. sheets 4, 6. Also, check calculation as 4,019 S.F. (required) appears slightly high (3,866 S.F. /review check). 29. Sheet 20 —Revise VSMP Compliance Summary 2 /2.1 —Also, see #l.b., above. 30. Sheet 20—SWM/BMP Maintenance Agreement: Not typically seen on SWM Plans. If retain, recommend parenthetical: (Summary, for information only. Maintenance Agreement exists as separate legal document, and is recorded elsewhere). Stormwater Management Design Summary —East Side (3 -ring binder + e -document) 1-i (e-aoe) —tvpo —Now snouta react no Floodplain V Nnw4loodp€ain impacts are impacts are not WATER s aDDD a propo.'UA. Cut spillway implicitly 0.00 channels to tie facility approved in the outfalls are, the only work master plan -- proposed Mthin the Encroachment floodplain per into Floodplain? understanding of prior discussions ivith Albemarle County staff. Impacts) b. p. 17 e-doc —DA 12B —Area SF values should be revised listed as 0.000) fbR£STiD a aaoa 55 a�4 OPEN SPACE B 6.Dt]a dl GM WATER s aDDD 9$ 0.00 sum ODOO 0.00 CW NDIV{DI Routings: L-2 10 -yr (POST) —SUMMARY Proposed Peak =16.83 cfs : Appendix C* /routing: =16.98 cfs —please Reconcile. * Appendix C: Hydrology Support Information Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 9 C. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion Control Plan (WP0201600009) Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESOP. This plan is approvedpending follow up request for slight r-evisions at items �i1ta1. (Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Ref. email 5/21/2016 920 PM; #21, #24 Addressed. (Final) Addressed. Note: With decision to reference Master Plan for Old Trail (OTV MP), with CGP (VAR 100043) valid through 2024 (w/renewal in 2019), and with initial SWM Application for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 expected soon, it may be possible to approve this ESCP (w/revisions), process ESC bond, and issue a Grading Permit prior to final detailed SWM facility design approval. Much depends on timing and form of initial SWM Application: substantial deviation from OTV MP could derail any effort to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP approval for these blocks. If SWMP bears close similarity to OTV MP and if County/Applicant are close to agreement on OTV MP, then it may be possible to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP Approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18. This may help, or be offer of limited benefit given required level of coordination with Parks and Recreation and agreements likely necessary to locate permanent SWM facilities on County Parks and Recreation property (TMP# 55E -01-H). Easements may exist, but additional deeded access from County to Applicant may be required for SWM facilities L2/L3. Further, withfinal detailed SWM plan design approval a prerequisite to Site Plan (SDP201600006)/Final Plat approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18; with Variance to ZMA200400024/GDP sheet 3 a prerequisite to County ability to apply OTV MP, a series of steps is required prior to sale of Lots in these blocks. Engineering will try to expedite review. .PDF preview is available for limited design checks. It is possible up to 5 plans may be under review at once: Final Site/Final Plat, WPO, ROAD, and Zoning Variance Exhibit; this, in Addition to OTV MP -print plans are essential to help avoid errors and mistakes. fGIS/Approx. Location OTV MP BMPs LL 2, L-3 (TMP# 55E -01-H)] Note: Irl may not serve blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 -reference to L-2 may be misplaced. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Water Quantity Compliance Summary NODE Existing Peak Discharge (cis) Proposed Peak discharge Nsj Percent Difference 10 2 -YR 10 -YR I 1OD-YR 2 -YR 10 -YR I 1DD-YR 2 -YR M -YR 10D -YR L-2 6,04 18.69 48.54 5.34 16.83 108.75 -11.6% -10496 124.196 L-3 4.71 14.32 36.64 1.91 7.14 45.03 -59.4% -50.1% 22.9% S-3 3.65 11.52 30.GG 3.G0 11.48 41.41 -1.4% -0.3% 35.1% 5.12 1.17 3.63 9.48 0 81 2.24 22.50 -30.8% -38.3% 131.396 C. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion Control Plan (WP0201600009) Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESOP. This plan is approvedpending follow up request for slight r-evisions at items �i1ta1. (Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Ref. email 5/21/2016 920 PM; #21, #24 Addressed. (Final) Addressed. Note: With decision to reference Master Plan for Old Trail (OTV MP), with CGP (VAR 100043) valid through 2024 (w/renewal in 2019), and with initial SWM Application for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 expected soon, it may be possible to approve this ESCP (w/revisions), process ESC bond, and issue a Grading Permit prior to final detailed SWM facility design approval. Much depends on timing and form of initial SWM Application: substantial deviation from OTV MP could derail any effort to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP approval for these blocks. If SWMP bears close similarity to OTV MP and if County/Applicant are close to agreement on OTV MP, then it may be possible to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP Approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18. This may help, or be offer of limited benefit given required level of coordination with Parks and Recreation and agreements likely necessary to locate permanent SWM facilities on County Parks and Recreation property (TMP# 55E -01-H). Easements may exist, but additional deeded access from County to Applicant may be required for SWM facilities L2/L3. Further, withfinal detailed SWM plan design approval a prerequisite to Site Plan (SDP201600006)/Final Plat approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18; with Variance to ZMA200400024/GDP sheet 3 a prerequisite to County ability to apply OTV MP, a series of steps is required prior to sale of Lots in these blocks. Engineering will try to expedite review. .PDF preview is available for limited design checks. It is possible up to 5 plans may be under review at once: Final Site/Final Plat, WPO, ROAD, and Zoning Variance Exhibit; this, in Addition to OTV MP -print plans are essential to help avoid errors and mistakes. fGIS/Approx. Location OTV MP BMPs LL 2, L-3 (TMP# 55E -01-H)] Note: Irl may not serve blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 -reference to L-2 may be misplaced. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 9 0 o Heo Moe. s--1, -ofl This is an ESCP —please remove labels SWM -1, SWM -2, and SWM-3/all sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Replace Ex. SWM -2 labels with Ex. SB2/all sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Replace SWM -1, SWM -3 labels with SB1, SB3/all sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheet 2: 5. Show/label 50 -ft distance and 100 -ft WPO stream buffers for Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Recommend reference Stantec Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan/5 Feb 2016 on Overall Plan sheet. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Recommend add Future BMP L-2 to Existing Sediment Basin WPO #201300082 label. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 8. Revise sediment basin profile titles (sheets 6, 7, 8) to read SB 1, SB2/Modified, SB3, respectively. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. Revise routing data block text (sheets 6, 7, 8) to eliminate reference to SWM; instead ref, sediment basins. (Also, see item #33) (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Please edit sheet titles to read Sediment Basin rather than Stormwater Basin. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. (Final) Addressed. 10. Note: SWMP routings when submitted may reference detention/retention basins, and ideally reference L_3, SS31 5-12, consistent with OTV MP. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. Sheet 3: Provide trapping device, E side Fielding Run, opposite Claire Mill Circle (>100'L slope). SF alone is insufficient. (Rev. 1) Addressed/discussed 9 -Mar. 12. Sheet 3: Provide diversion dike upslope of SF, E of Fielding Run opposite 5 lots at N end of the street. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheets 3, 4: 13. Provide SAF, each sediment trap/basin. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 14. Revise CE symbol to read PCE (paved CE), consistent with detail, sheet 5. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 15. Revise Limits of Disturbance labels to include 27.13 Acres. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 16. Provide additional existing contour labels. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheet 4: 17. Proposed contour labels difficult to read; increase pitch. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 18. Revise drainage divide around SB3; show divide at Elev. 650±. [ref. profile/sheet 8] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 19. Provide SF, E side Fielding Run Drive, Sta. 31+40 - 33+40±. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 9 20. Revise drainage divide E of Fielding Run Drive, beginning Sta. 31+40± ; divide is shown running east, parallel with contours; revise to show running NE along ridge (proposed contours). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 21. Provide diversion (250'±) to direct runoff along proposed contours, N edge limits of disturbance into SB -1. (Rev. 1) As follow-up —Please provide diversion in alternate location: if view sheet 4 physically, request diversion extend from approx. mid -point of plan sheet revisions block down (East) to scale block. (Rev. 1 diversion provided may be removed.) Apologize for any confusion please call if any questions. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 22. Reference sediment basin outfall/riprap protection details on sheets 6, 7, 8 (OP1A, OP2A, OP3A). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 23. Shift diversion/DV out of sidewalk, NW corner, intersection Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 24. Consider/provide SB -1 baffle, if necessary, to increase flow path of runoff entering from S to prevent short- circuiting. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asfollow-up: Please show SB 1 riseribarrel in plan -view. (Rev. 2) Addressed. 25. Eliminate `SWM POND (See Master Plan)' Note. Provide Title sheet or Sheet 2 reference to Master Plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 26. Proposed sediment basin embankments, berm elevations, contours, outfall pipe locations, INV elevations, pipe lengths/DIA, primary riser locations/Eley., and grading should match OTV MP BMP LL3, S-3, S-12 design parameters, if possible. Avoid need to replace/relocate through -dam pipe outfalls requiring embankment tear -down to convert sediment basins to permanent SWM facilities. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 27. Sheet 5: Silt Fence drainage installation detail: revise detail to provide gap in SF downslope of sediment basin pipe outfall/riprap protection. Place stone in gaps. SF/stone should not be required downslope of SB outfall protection, but perimeter SF/stone is appropriate at these points until slopes stabilize. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheets 6, 7, 8: 28. Profiles/All sheets: Show dewatering device, dry storage/clean-out elevation [Ref. VA DSWC detail]. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 29. Provide conventional flat/level top of embankment; anticipate berm will provide vehicular access. Eliminate prism berm design. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 30. Provide 10' -wide berm if embankment to provide facility (Maintenance vehicle) access. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 31. Design/show pipe collars: Calc. saturated length; provide number of required collars and dimensions. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 32. Label slope (3:1, 4:1, etc.) —left -side slope/each profile view. Match LL=3, 55=3, S-12 design, if possible. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 33. Remove HydroCAD detailed routings data from plan sheets 6, 7, 8; provide Q2,-10,-25 yr. summaries, instead. Provide detailed routings/data as supplemental document. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 34. Sheet 6: Recommend OPA1 Q25 design, since no emergency spillway. OPA1 must provide adequate protection. OTV MP shows pipe outfall located 50 -ft. from Lickinghole Creek. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 35. Sheet 6: Toe of dam —620.00 appears inconsistent with profile. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 36. Sheet 7: Recommend revise top of dam Elev. to 657.20, and INV out —649.97 to INV out —651.5, consistent with MP. Goal is to avoid reconstruction during conversion to SWM facility. Adjust INV in — and riser data, as necessary. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 15] (Rev. 1) to be addressed with detailed final SWMP. 37. Sheet 8: Recommend facility outfall pipe DIA, L, location match MP. MP pipe DIA =18", L=120'±. INV out is identical w/ OTV MP. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 16] (Rev. 1) to be addressed with detailed final SWMP. Sheet 9: 38. Design notes/details should reflect concerns expressed during review of blocks 11, 14, 12, 15 Amended, WP0201500066. There is trace reference to critical geotechnical aspects of design; nothing on sheet 9. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 8 of 9 39. Ref. VSMH, First Edit., 1999, Min. Std. 3.01, Earthen Embankment —Specify embankment design. Design/show cutoff trench, drains, impervious core, etc., in profile view. (Ref. VSMH, Fig. 3.01 -la/ -Ib (homogenous/zoned)). (Rev. 1) Addressed. D. Mitigation Plan (WPO2016-00009) (Also, email: J. Anderson to A uny George, 6/20/2016 6:24 AM) The mitigation plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-406. 1. Include `WPO201600009' in Mitigation Plan title. 2. Mitigation Area labels: misprint (Mitigtaion) —please revise. 3. Ensure Area B2-1 will not be impacted by Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project. 4. Recommend signs visible to the public that advertise March Mountain Properties' stream buffer impact minimization, and stream buffer preservation, conservation, and restoration efforts. 5. Add Note (Mitigation Area B2-1 site): "Area B2-1 will not be planted until Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project is complete. Area 132-1 should be planted in the fall of the year of completion of the sanitary sewer extension project, or the spring of the following year. Land disturbance associated with WPO201600009 must be stabilized (per Approved ESCP) without regard to Mitigation Plan in any area that may be affected by Slabtown Branch Sanitary Sewer Extension project." Contact Engineering Div. if any questions (Frank Pohl, County Engineer). 6. Ensure vehicular access to SWM Facilities L-2, L-3, S-3, S-12 will not create additional stream buffer impacts, or affect proposed mitigation areas (especially Areas Al, A2, A3, B2-1, C1). 7. Recommend include plant totals for each plant schedule table. 8. Add Note: "Minimum survival required after two growing seasons is 490 plants per Acre, or 1,299 plants. This plan establishes nine Mitigation Areas. 1,299 is a plan -wide figure. 70% plant survival does not apply to any single Mitigation area. Provided 1,299 plants survive at the end of two growing seasons, the plant survival requirement is met. Mitigation plan bond amount may be reduced for plants that survive two growing seasons. Mortality that reduces survival to less than 1,299 plants must be replaced with tree or shrub container -grown seedlings, per plant and planting requirements (specifications) listed at Stream - buffer Mitigation General Planting Notes (sheet 3). These notes apply to replacement plants, as well as initial plants." 9. Add Note: "County access to each Mitigation Area during normal business hours to inspect or execute mitigation measures (re -plantings, for example) will be provided through Easements." 10. Establish (Mitigation Plan) Easements that correspond with and preserve Mitigation Areas identified in the plan. 11. Establish Access Easements that grant (county) access to each Area identified in the plan. This does not mean vehicular access, but near -vehicle approach with remaining terrain traversable by an individual of median age in good health. Access easement terrain should not be rugged. 12. Submit Easements for legal review and approval prior to and as condition of Final Site Plan approval, or Final Plat approval, for Lots /units in Old Trail Village, blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 & 30. 13. Note —It is important to limit replanting cycles. 1,299 is a fixed end -of -2"d -growing -season requirement. If, for example, the total at the end of the second season is 1,249 (shortfall =50), then 50 replacements must survive, meaning it may be best to plant more than 50 to ensure that, in the example, at least 50 survive at the end of the second replacement growing season. Please call Frank Pohl, County Engineer -434.296-5832 —x7914, if any questions. 14. Note —Mitigation Plan must be bonded. Engineering Review Comments Page 9 of 9 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 (received). One of the plan reviewers will prepare estimates (under courtesy review /draft ESCP bond estimate shared with Applicant, 20 -Jun) 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. 6/20/2016 6:24 AM VAR100043 was modified by VDEQ on 16 -Mar 2016 to include blocks 10, 16 & 17/18, 27.13 Ac. area of disturbance. County and Applioant have disetissed that onee Old TFail SWR:nwater- Master- Plan d. 5 Feb 2016 is revised in response to disetission 17 Mar-, is s4seqiiently r-eviewed and aecepted by County and Mar -eh Nloiintain Pr-apeFfies, that a pre eans"etion fneeting fnay be r-equested to r-eeeive a Grading Pefmit for- blooks 10, 16 & 17,119. Initial site plan (SDP201500028) for these blocks was approved 7/24/15. Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan (MP) refines Zoning Application (ZMA200400024) plan grading. Once County and Applicant accept revised MP, 18-8.5.5.4 allows County to issue a Grading Permit for site preparation. Pre -requisites to Grading permit include 6 items: i) Parks & Recreation Easements presumed by MP to locate L3 (or perform grading) on Alb. County property; ii) rev. 5 -Feb 2016 MP; iii) SWPPP; iv) slight revisions listed at #9, #21, and #24; v) ESC bond; and, vi) estimated date that detailed final SWM designs for L3, S3, S-12 will be submitted. (21 Jun 2016) Early Grading: Ref. email 5/26/2016 10:03 AM: D. Brockman to J. Anderson. Also: email, County to Dave Brockman, Bill Ledbetter, and Leslie Tate: 6/16/2016 7:48 AM. Early Grading is unfortunately not an option. [Review error.] WP0201600009 ESCP is approved Also, email: county to Applicant, May 23, 2016 9:07 AM). WP0201600009 SWMP (Stantec) is Conditionally—Approved (19 Jun 2016). Mitigation plan: under review. Once WP0201600009 receives Final Approval, once ESCP, SWMP, and Mitigation Plan bonds are posted, Applicant may request pre -construction conference by completing a form —all state fees have been paid. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and remaining fee to be paid (county portion). 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 Grading permit will be issued so that work may begin. County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering; hLtp://www.albemarle.org/dotforins.asp?departtnent--cdengmTo Thank you New tel. # : 434.872-4501 —x3069 File: WP0201600009 OTV blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 VSMP Junl9-21,2016 PHONE(434)977-0205 o; FAX(434)296-5220 INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM 111 ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAND SURVEYING Serving Vuginia Since 1956 ENGINEERING 914 MONTICELLO ROAD LAND PLANNING CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER,L.S. 22902 J.CLINT HARMON,L.S. CHRISTOPHER C.MULLIGAN,P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN,L.S. AMMY M.GEORGE,LA. BRIAN D.JAMISON,L.S. May 13,2016 Mr.John Anderson,Civil Engineer II County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,VA 22902 Regarding: WPO-2016-00009—Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16, 17& 18 Dear Mr. Anderson, I have reviewed the comments from February 26, 2015. The individual responses to those comments are below. Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 Site(WPO201600009): WPO201600009 A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain(1) a PPP,(2)an ESCP,(3)a SWMP,and(4)any TMDL measures necessary. 1. Please submit SWPPP for blocks 10, 16& 17/18—include SWPPP Exhibit. Pattern after prior SWPPP submittals,prior blocks. Permit Registration Statement and VAR100043 are current and incl.27.13 Ac. area of disturbance proposed with these blocks. Please call ifanv questions. B. VSMP:SWPPP:Stormwater Management Plan(WP02016-xxxxx) VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP. County anticipates that a detailed,final SWM Plan will be submitted by Stantec,Williamsburg,VA,in the near-term. Stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403. C. VSMP:SWPPP:Erosion Control Plan(WPO201600009) Virginia Code§62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan is approved pending follow-up request for slight revisions at items#9,#21,#24. Please send sheet 4.PDF prior to print resubmittal. I. Note: With decision to reference Master Plan for Old Trail(OTV MP),with CGP(VARI00043)valid through 2024(w/renewal in 2019),and with initial SWM Application for blocks 10, 16, 17,and 18 expected soon, it may he possible to approve this ESCP(w/revisions),process ESC bond,and issue a Grading Permit prior to final detailed SWM facility design approval. Much depends on timing and form of initial SWM Application:substantial deviation from OTV MP could derail any effort to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP approval for these blocks. If SWMP bears close similarity to OTV MP and if County/Applicant are close to agreement on OTV MP,then it may be possible to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP Approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18. This may help,or be offer of limited benefit given required level of coordination with Parks and Recreation and agreements likely necessary to locate permanent SWM facilities on County Parks and Recreation property(TMP#55E-01-H). Easements may exist,but additional deeded access from County to Applicant may be required for SWM facilities L-2/L-3. 411110 . 4111110 Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 Further, with incl detailed SWM plan design approval a prerequisite to Site Plan (SDP201600006)/Final Plat approval for blocks 10, 16, 17,and 18;with Variance to ZMA200400024/GDP sheet 3 a prerequisite to County ability to apply OTV MP,a series of steps is required prior to sale of Lots in these blocks. Engineering will try to expedite review. .PDF preview is available for limited design checks. It is possible up to 5 plans may be under review at once: Final Site/Final Plat, WPO, ROAD,and Zoning Variance Exhibit;this,in Addition to OTV MP—print plans are essential to help avoid errors and mistakes. IGIS!Approx. Location OTV MP BMPs L-2, L-3(TMP#55E-01-H)] No a =ery e Mocks 10. 16. 17.and 18—reference to 1 -2 may he misplaced. (Rev. 1)Acknowledged. 9::: ::.. ::G::E ..., meth. ill #(1116.. 800.."'f12..1.1 +TSG 'sJ8 4.....,, 43A r-i'i II do, -....01111.11111111. ifi°17°°'°°°°' ..,. c74/ 0 hrll j 6 Pi., 2. This is an ESCP—please remove labels SWM-1, SWM-2.and SWM-3/all sheets. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 3. Replace Ex. SWM-2 labels with Ex.SB2/all sheets. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 4. Replace SWM-I,SWM-3 labels with SBI,SB3/all sheets. (Rev. 1)Addressed. Sheet 2: 5. Show/label 50-ft distance and 100-ft WPO stream buffers for Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 6. Recommend reference Stantec Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan/5 Feb 2016 on Overall Plan sheet. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 7. Recommend add Future BMP L-2 to Existing Sediment Basin WPO#201300082 label. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 8. Revise sediment basin profile titles(sheets 6,7,8)to read SB 1, SB2/Modified,SB3,respectively. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. Revise routing data block text(sh; )to eliminate reference to SWM; instead ref. sediment basins. (Also,see item#33) (Rev. 1)Addressed. As follow-up:Please edit sheet titles to read Sediment Basin rather than Stormwater Basin. • Tile sheets have been revised as requested. 10. Note: SWMP routings when submitted may reference detention/retention basins,and ideally reference L-3, S-3, S-12,consistent with OTV MP. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 11. Sheet 3: Provide trapping device.E side Fielding Run,opposite Claire Mill Circle(>100' L slope). SF alone is insufficient. (Rev. 1)Addressed/discussed 9-Mar. 12. Sheet 3: Provide diversion dike upslope of SF,E of Fielding Run opposite 5 lots at N end of the street. (Rev. 1)Addressed. Sheets 3,4: 13. Provide SAF,each sediment trap/basin. (Rev. 1)Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 14. Revise CE symbol to read PCE(paved CE),consistent with detail,sheet 5. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 15. Revise Limits of Disturbance labels to include 27.13 Acres. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 16. Provide additional existing contour labels. (Rev. 1)Addressed. Sheet 4: 17. Proposed contour labels difficult to read; increase pitch. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 18. Revise drainage divide around SB3;show divide at Elev.650±. [ref.profile/sheet 8] (Rev. 1)Addressed. 19. Provide SF, E side Fielding Run Drive, Sta.31+40-33+40±. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 20. Revise drainage divide E of Fielding Run Drive,beginning Sta.31+40±;divide is shown running east, parallel with contours;revise to show running NE along ridge(proposed contours). (Rev. 1)Addressed. 21. Provide diversion(250'±)to direct runoff along proposed contours,N edge limits of disturbance into SB-1. (Rev. 1)As follow-up—Please provide diversion in alternate location:if view sheet 4 physically,request diversion extend from approx.mid-point of plan sheet revisions block down(East)to scale block. (Rev. 1 diversion provided may be removed.) Apologize for any confusion—please call fanv questions. • Diversion has been added N edge of SB-1 as requested. 22. Reference sediment basin outfall/riprap protection details on sheets 6,7,8(OPIA,OP2A,OP3A). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 23. Shift diversion/DV out of sidewalk,NW corner,intersection Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 24. Consider/provide SB-1 baffle,if necessary,to increase flow path of runoff entering from S to prevent short- circuiting. (Rev. 1)Addressed. As follow-up:Please show SB1 riser/barrel in plan-view. • Riser/barrel has been shown in plan-view as requested. 25. Eliminate`SWM POND(See Master Plan)'Note. Provide Title sheet or Sheet 2 reference to Master Plan. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 26. Proposed sediment basin embankments,berm elevations,contours,outfall pipe locations. INV elevations, pipe lengths,'D1A,primary riser locations/Elev.,and grading should match OTV MP BMP L-3,S-3,S-12 design parameters, if possible. Avoid need to replace/relocate through-darn pipe outfalls requiring embankment tear-down to convert sediment basins to permanent SWM facilities. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 27. Sheet 5: Silt Fence drainage installation detail:revise detail to provide gap in SF downslope of sediment basin pipe outfall/riprap protection. Place stone in gaps. SF/stone should not be required downslope of SB outfall protection,but perimeter SF/stone is appropriate at these points until slopes stabilize. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheets 6,7,8: 28. Profiles/All sheets: Show dewatering device,dry storage/clean-out elevation [Ref.VA DSWC detail]. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 29. Provide conventional flat/level top of embankment;anticipate berm will provide vehicular access. Eliminate prism berm design. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 30. Provide I 0'-wide berm if embankment to provide facility(Maintenance vehicle)access. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 31. Design/show pipe collars:Calc.saturated length;provide number of required collars and dimensions. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 32. Label slope(3:1,4:1,etc.)—left-side slope/each profile view. Match L-3, S-3,S-12 design,if possible. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 33. Remove HydroCAD detailed routings data from plan sheets 6,7,8;provide Q2,_10,-25 yr.summaries, instead. Provide detailed routings/data as supplemental document. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 34. Sheet 6: Recommend OPAI Q25 design,since no emergency spillway. OPA1 must provide adequate protection. OTV MP shows pipe outfall located 50-ft. from Lickinghole Creek. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 35. Sheet 6:Toe of dam=620.00 appears inconsistent with profile. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 36. Sheet 7: Recommend revise top of dam Elev.to 657.20,and INV out=649.97 to INV out=651.5, consistent with MP. Goal is to avoid reconstruction during conversion to SWM facility. Adjust INV in= and riser data,as necessary. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 15] (Rev. 1)to be addressed with detailed final SWMP. 41110 ‘111110 Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 37. Sheet 8: Recommend facility outfall pipe DIA, L, location match MP. MP pipe DIA=18", L=120'+. INV out is identical w/OTV MP. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 16] (Rev. 1)to be addressed with detailed final SWMP. Sheet 9: 38. Design notes/details should reflect concerns expressed during review of blocks 11, 14, 12, 15 Amended, WPO201500066. There is trace reference to critical geotechnical aspects of design: nothing on sheet 9. (Rev. 1)Addressed. 39. Ref.VSMH,First Edit.. 1999.Min. Std.3.01,Earthen Embankment—Specify embankment design. Design/show cutoff trench,drains. impervious core,etc., in profile view. (Ref.VSMH.Fig.3.01-1a/-lb (homogenous/zoned)). (Rev. 1)Addressed. D. Mitigation Plan(WPO2016-)oxxx)—With detailed final SWM Plan,provide Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-406. • Acknowledged. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, (2.0i4.4frvy Jeremy Fox File: WPO201600009 OTV_blocks 10. 16. 17. I8_ESConIy 0403I6rcv I 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: Plan preparer Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) Reviewer: WP0201600009 Erosion Control Plan review Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16 & 17/18 Erosion Control Plan Jeremy Fox, Ammy George, Bill Ledbetter —Roudabush, Gale & Assoc, Inc 914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902, jfox(&roudabush.com; a george(a)roudabush.com; bledbetterna roudabush.com March Mountain Properties LLC [1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100] Dave Brockman, davegoldtrailvilla eg coin 11 Feb 2016 18 Mar 2016 6 Mar 2016 3 Apr 2016 John Anderson A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary. 1. Please submit SWPPP for blocks 10, 16 & 17/18 —include SWPPP Exhibit. Pattern after prior SWPPP submittals, prior blocks. Permit Registration Statement and VAR100043 are current and incl. 27.13 Ac. area of disturbance proposed with these blocks. Please call if any questions. B. VSMP: SWPPP: Stormwater Management Plan (WP02016-xxxxx) VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP. Coun anticipates that a detailed, final SWM Plan will be submitted by Stantec, Williamsburg, VA, in the near-term. Stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403. C. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion Control Plan (WP0201600009) Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP. This plan is approved pending follow-up request for slight revisions at items #9, #21, #24. Please send sheet 4 .PDF prior to print resubmittal. 1. Note: With decision to reference Master Plan for Old Trail (OTV MP), with CGP (VAR 100043) valid through 2024 (w/renewal in 2019), and with initial SWM Application for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 expected soon, it may be possible to approve this ESCP (w/revisions), process ESC bond, and issue a Grading Permit prior to final detailed SWM facility design approval. Much depends on timing and form of initial SWM Application: substantial deviation from OTV MP could derail any effort to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP approval for these blocks. If SWMP bears close similarity to OTV MP and if County/Applicant are close to agreement on OTV MP, then it may be possible to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP Approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18. This may help, or be offer of limited benefit given required level of coordination with Parks and Recreation and agreements likely necessary to locate permanent SWM facilities on County Parks and Recreation property (TMP# 55E -O1 -H). Easements may exist, but additional deeded access from County to Applicant may be required for SWM facilities L2/L3. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 Further, with anal detailed SWM plan design approval a prerequisite to Site Plan (SDP201600006)/Final Plat approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18; with Variance to ZMA200400024/GDP sheet 3 a prerequisite to County ability to apply OTV MP, a series of steps is required prior to sale of Lots in these blocks. Engineering will try to expedite review. .PDF preview is available for limited design checks. It is possible up to 5 plans may be under review at once: Final Site/Final Plat, WPO, ROAD, and Zoning Variance Exhibit; this, in Addition to OTV MP—print plans are essential to help avoid errors and mistakes. [GIS/Approx. Location OTV MP BMPs LL2, L3 (TMP# 55E -O1 -H)] Note: LL2 may not serve blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 —reference to L-2 may be misplaced. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged. 2. This is an ESCP –please remove labels SWM -1, SWM -2, and SWM-3/all sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 3. Replace Ex. SWM -2 labels with Ex. SB2/all sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Replace SWM -1, SWM -3 labels with S131, S133/all sheets. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheet 2: 5. Show/label 50 -ft distance and 100 -ft WPO stream buffers for Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 6. Recommend reference Stantec Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan/5 Feb 2016 on Overall Plan sheet. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 7. Recommend add Future BMP L-2 to Existing Sediment Basin WPO #201300082 label. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 8. Revise sediment basin profile titles (sheets 6, 7, 8) to read SBI, SB2/Modified, SB3, respectively. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. Revise routing data block text (sheets 6, 7, 8) to eliminate reference to SWM; instead ref, sediment basins. (Also, see item #33) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asfollow-up: Please edit sheet titles to read Sediment Basin rather than Stormwater Basin. 10. Note: SWMP routings when submitted may reference detention/retention basins, and ideally reference LL3, SS=3, S-12, consistent with OTV MP. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 11. Sheet 3: Provide trapping device, E side Fielding Run, opposite Claire Mill Circle (>100'L slope). SF alone is insufficient. (Rev. 1) Addressed/discussed 9 -Mar. 12. Sheet 3: Provide diversion dike upslope of SF, E of Fielding Run opposite 5 lots at N end of the street. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheets 3, 4: 13. Provide SAF, each sediment trap/basin (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 14. Revise CE symbol to read PCE (paved CE), consistent with detail, sheet 5. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 15. Revise Limits of Disturbance labels to include 27.13 Acres. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 16. Provide additional existing contour labels. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheet 4: 17. Proposed contour labels difficult to read; increase pitch. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 18. Revise drainage divide around S133; show divide at Elev. 650+. [ref. profile/sheet 8] (Rev. 1) Addressed. 19. Provide SF, E side Fielding Run Drive, Sta. 31+40 - 33+40±. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 20. Revise drainage divide E of Fielding Run Drive, beginning Sta. 31+40± ; divide is shown running east, parallel with contours; revise to show running NE along ridge (proposed contours). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 21. Provide diversion (250'±) to direct runoff along proposed contours, N edge limits of disturbance into SB -1. (Rev. 1) As follow-up —Please provide diversion in alternate location: if view sheet 4 physically, request diversion extend from approx. mid -point of plan sheet revisions block down (East) to scale block. (Rev. 1 diversion provided may be removed.) Apologize for any confusion —please call if any questions. 22. Reference sediment basin outfall/riprap protection details on sheets 6, 7, 8 (OP1A, OP2A, OP3A). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 23. Shift diversion/DV out of sidewalk, NW corner, intersection Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 24. Consider/provide SB -1 baffle, if necessary, to increase flow path of runoff entering from S to prevent short- circuiting. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asfollow-up: Please show SB 1 riser/barrel in plan -view. 25. Eliminate `SWM POND (See Master Plan)' Note. Provide Title sheet or Sheet 2 reference to Master Plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 26. Proposed sediment basin embankments, berm elevations, contours, outfall pipe locations, INV elevations, pipe lengths/DIA, primary riser locations/Elev., and grading should match OTV MP BMP LL3, S-3, S-12 design parameters, if possible. Avoid need to replace/relocate through -dam pipe outfalls requiring embankment tear -down to convert sediment basins to permanent SWM facilities. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 27. Sheet 5: Silt Fence drainage installation detail: revise detail to provide gap in SF downslope of sediment basin pipe outfall/riprap protection. Place stone in gaps. SF/stone should not be required downslope of SB outfall protection, but perimeter SF/stone is appropriate at these points until slopes stabilize. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Sheets 6, 7, 8: 28. Profiles/All sheets: Show dewatering device, dry storage/clean-out elevation [Ref. VA DSWC detail]. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 29. Provide conventional flat/level top of embankment; anticipate berm will provide vehicular access. Eliminate prism berm design. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 30. Provide 10' -wide berm if embankment to provide facility (Maintenance vehicle) access. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 31. Design/show pipe collars: Calc. saturated length; provide number of required collars and dimensions. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 32. Label slope (3:1, 4:1, etc.) left -side slope/each profile view. Match L3, S3, S-12 design, if possible. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 33. Remove HydroCAD detailed routings data from plan sheets 6, 7, 8; provide Q2-10-25 -z5 yr. summaries, instead. Provide detailed routings/data as supplemental document. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 34. Sheet 6: Recommend OPA1 Q25 design, since no emergency spillway. OPA1 must provide adequate protection. OTV MP shows pipe outfall located 50 -ft. from Lickinghole Creek. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 35. Sheet 6: Toe of dam =620.00 appears inconsistent with profile. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 36. Sheet 7: Recommend revise top of dam Elev. to 657.20, and INV out =649.97 to INV out =651.5, consistent with MP. Goal is to avoid reconstruction during conversion to SWM facility. Adjust INV in — and riser data, as necessary. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 15] (Rev. 1) to be addressed with detailed final SWMP. Engineering Review Comments Page 4of5 37. Sheet 8: Recommend facility outfall pipe DIA, L, location match MP. MP pipe DIA =18", L =120'±. INV out is identical w/ OTV MP. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 16] (Rev. 1) to be addressed with detailed final SWMP. Sheet 9: 38. Design notes/details should reflect concerns expressed during review of blocks 11, 14, 12, 15 Amended, WP0201500066. There is trace reference to critical geotechnical aspects of design; nothing on sheet 9. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 39. Ref. VSMH, First Edit., 1999, Min. Std. 3.01, Earthen Embankment —Specify embankment design. Design/show cutoff trench, drains, impervious core, etc., in profile view. (Ref. VSMH, Fig. 3.01 -la/ -Ib (homogenous/zoned)). (Rev. 1) Addressed. D. Mitigation Plan (WP02016-xxxxx) — With detailed final SWM Plan, provide Mitigation Plan. The mitigation plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-406. Engineering review staff are available 2-4 PM on Thursdays if you wish to discuss project, comments, or design. Plan review staff available at 434.296-5832 -0069, should you have any questions. 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. VAR 100043 was modified by VDEQ on 16 -Mar 2016 to include blocks 10, 16 & 17/18, 27.13 Ac. area of disturbance. County and Applicant have discussed that once Old Trail Stormwater Master Plan d. 5 Feb 2016 is revised in response to discussion 17 -Mar, is subsequently reviewed and accepted by County and March Mountain Properties, that a pre -construction meeting may be requested to receive a Grading Permit for blocks 10, 16 & 17/18. Initial site plan (SDP201500028) for these blocks was approved 7/24/15. Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan (MP) refines Zoning Application (ZMA200400024) plan grading. Once County and Applicant accept revised MP, 18-8.5.5.4 allows County to issue a Grading Permit for site preparation. Pre -requisites to Grading permit include 6 items: i) Parks & Recreation Easements presumed by MP to locate L-3 (or perform grading) on Alb. County property; ii) rev. 5 -Feb 2016 MP; iii) SWPPP; iv) slight revisions listed at #9, #21, and #24; v) ESC bond; and, vi) estimated date that detailed final SWM designs for LL3, 553, S-12 will be submitted. Once pre -requisites met, County can hold a pre -construction conference no sooner than two weeks prior to detailed final SWMP design submittal. County assumes conformity between MP and detailed final SWM Plan submittal for these blocks. Applicant will need to request a pre -construction conference by completing a form —all state fees have been paid. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and remaining fee to be paid (county portion). 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 Grading permit will be issued so that work may begin. A detailed final (VSMP) SWM Plan submittal for blocks 10, 16 & 17/18 is requested at your earliest convenience. Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 5 County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering; http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department--cdengwTo Thank you 434.296-5832 —0069 File: WP0201600009_OTV blocks 10, 16, 17, 18_ESConly_040316revl ‘11101 *414i00# PHONE(434)977-0205 FAX(434)296-5220 °+' INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAND SURVEYING Serving Virginia Since 1956 ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING 914 MONTICELLO ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER,L.S. 22902 J.CLINT HARMON,L.S. CHRISTOPHER C.MULLIGAN,P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN,L.S. AMMY M.GEORGE,LA BRIAN D.JAMISON,L.S. February 26, 2016 Mr. John Anderson, Civil Engineer II County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,VA 22902 Regarding: WPO-2016-00009–Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16, 17& 18 Dear Mr. Anderson, I have reviewed the comments from February 26,2015. The individual responses to those comments are below. Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 Site(WPO201600009): 1. Note: With decision to reference Master Plan for Old Trail (OTV MP), with CGP(VAR100043) valid through 2024(w/renewal in 2019), and with initial SWM Application for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18 expected soon, it may be possible to approve this ESCP(w/revisions), process ESC bond, and issue a Grading Permit prior to final detailed SWM facility design approval. Much depends on timing and form of initial SWM Application: substantial deviation from OTV MP could derail any effort to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP approval for these blocks. If SWMP bears • close similarity to OTV MP and if County/Applicant are close to agreement on OTV MP,then it may be possible to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP Approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18. This may help, or be offer of limited benefit given required level of coordination with Parks and Recreation and agreements likely necessary to locate permanent SWM facilities on County Parks and Recreation property(TMP# 55E-01-H). Easements may exist, but additional deeded access from County to Applicant may be required for SWM facilities L-2/L-3. Further,with final detailed SWM plan design approval a prerequisite to Site Plan(SDP201600006)/Final Plat approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18; with Variance to ZMA200400024/GDP sheet 3 a prerequisite to County ability to apply OTV MP,a series of steps is required prior to sale of Lots in these blocks. Engineering will try to expedite review. .PDF preview is available for limited design checks. It is possible up to 5 plans may be under review at once: Final Site/Final Plat, WPO, ROAD, and Zoning Variance Exhibit;this, in Addition to OTV MP—print plans are essential to help avoid errors and mistakes. IGIS/Approx. Location OTV MP BMPs L-2,LL=3 (TMP# 55E-01-H)] Note: L-2 may not serve blocks 10, 16, 17, and 18–reference to L-2 may be misplaced. • Acknowledged. WPO-2016-00009 3/18/2016 1 2. This is an ESCP—please remove labels SWM-1, SWM-2, and SWM-/all sheets. • All SWM labels have been removed and revised to be SB labels. 3. Replace Ex. SWM-2 labels with Ex. SB2/all sheets. • All SWM labels have been removed and revised to be SB labels. 4. Replace SWM-1, SWM-3 labels with SB1, SB3/all sheets. • All SWM labels have been removed and revised to be SB labels. Sheet 2: 5. Show/label 50-ft distance and 100-ft WPO stream buffers for Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. • 50' and 100' WPO buffers have been shown. 6. Recommend reference Stantec Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan/5 Feb 2016 on Overall Plan sheet. • Stantec master plan has been referenced on overall plan. 7. Recommend add Future BMP L-2 to Existing Sediment Basin WPO#201300082 label. • Basins have been revised to match Stantec master plan references to BMP measures. 8. Revise sediment basin profile titles(sheets 6, 7, 8)to read SB1, SB2/Modified, SB3, respectively. • Basins have been revised to match Stantec master plan references to BMP measures. C !l/ \ 9. Revise routing data block text(sheets 6, 7, 8)to eliminate reference to SWM; instead ref. sediment basins. (Also, see item#33) 4,\, • All SWM labels have been removed and revised to be SB labels. 10. Note: SWMP routings when submitted may reference detention/retention basins,and ideally reference L-3, S-3, S-12, consistent with OTV MP. • Basins have been revised to match Stantec master plan references to BMP measures. 11. Sheet 3: Provide trapping device, E side Fielding Run, opposite Claire Mill Circle(>100' L slope). SF alone is insufficient. • Trapping device not required per our discussion on March 9,2016.Area is accounted for behind Block 12 and is currently being used as designated stock pile area. SF at toe is adequate once stockpiles are removed. 12. Sheet 3: Provide diversion dike upslope of SF, E of Fielding Run opposite 5 lots at N end of the street. • Diversion has been extended upslope where requested. Sheets 3,4: 13. Provide SAF, each sediment trap/basin. • SAF symbol has been added to each sediment trap/basin. WPO-2016-00009 3/18/2016 2 14. Revise CE symbol to read PCE(paved CE), consistent with detail, s eet 5. • CE symbol has been revised to PCE for clarification. 15. Revise Limits of Disturbance labels to include 27.13 Acres. • The Limits of Disturbance labels have been revised to include the disturbed acreage. 16. Provide additional existing contour labels. • Additional existing contours have been added as requested. Sheet 4: 17. Proposed contour labels difficult to read; increase pitch. • Proposed contour labels have been increased in pitch for clarity as requested. 18. Revise drainage divide around SB3; show divide at Elev. 650±. [ref. profile/sheet 8] • Drainage area around SB3 has been revised as requested. 19. Provide SF, E side Fielding Run Drive, Sta. 31+40 -33+40±. • SF has been added as requested. 20. Revise drainage divide E of Fielding Run Drive, beginning Sta. 31+40± ; divide is shown running east, parallel with contours; revise to show running NE along ridge(proposed contours). • Drainage divide has been revised as requested. Com. 21. ovide diversion(250'±)to direct runoff along proposed contours,N edge limits of disturbance /\\" int SB-1. • Diversion has been added as requested. 22. Reference sediment basin outfall/riprap protection details on sheets 6, 7, 8 (OP1A,OP2A, OP3A). • Outfall protection has been referenced to the correct details/sheets for clarity as requested. 23. Shift diversion/DV out of sidewalk,NW corner, intersection Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive. • Diversion has been shifted out of sidewalk as requested. L21)Consider/ProvideSB-1 baffle, if necessary,to increase flow path of runoff entering from S to /prevent short-circuiting. jam~ • Baffle for SB#1 has been added along with details as requested. 25. Eliminate 'SWM POND(See Master Plan)' Note. Provide Title sheet or Sheet 2 reference to Master Plan. v �3\)''U • A note on sheet 2 has been added to reference Stantec master plan dated February 5,2016. SWM POND note has been omitted. 26. Proposed sediment basin embankments, berm elevations, contours, outfall pipe locations, INV elevations,pipe lengths/DIA,primary riser locations/Elev., and grading should match OTV MP BMP LL-3, SS3, S-12 design parameters, if possible. Avoid need to replace/relocate through-dam pipe outfalls requiring embankment tear-down to convert sediment basins to permanent SWM facilities. • The drainage area of early erosion control phases require SB#3 to contain a 24" barrel rather than 18". SB#2 riser and barrel details currently portrays asbuilt information and adequately passes worst case scenario.Information regarding WPO-2016-00009 3/18/2016 3 invert elevation,pipe lengths,etc. have been relayed to Stantec so that erosion control plans will match final stormwater master plan design dated February 5, 2016. Sheet 5: 27. Silt Fence drainage installation detail: revise detail to provide gap in SF downslope of sediment basin pipe outfall/riprap protection. Place stone in gaps. SF/stone should not be required downslope of SB outfall protection, but perimeter SF/stone is appropriate at these points until slopes stabilize. • SF detail has been revised to portray outfall area accurately. Sheets 6, 7, 8: 28. Profiles/All sheets: Show dewatering device, dry storage/clean-out elevation [Ref. VA DSWC detail]. • Dewatering device and cleanout elevations have been shown as requested. 29. Provide conventional flat/level top of embankment; anticipate berm will provide vehicular access. Eliminate prism berm design. • Berm design will be flat in design with cross-slope<3.5%. 30. Provide 10'-wide berm if embankment to provide facility(Maintenance vehicle)access. • 10' access paths will be provided on the SWM construction plans. 31. Design/show pipe collars: Calc. saturated length; provide number of required collars and dimensions. • Anti-seep collars have been added to schematics of each basin as requested on the basin profile sheets. 32. Label slope(3:1,4:1, etc.)—left-side slope/each profile view. Match L-3, S-3, S-12 design, if possible. • Cut slopes have been added to the sediment basin profiles as requested. 33. Remove HydroCAD detailed routings data from plan sheets 6, 7, 8; provide Q2,_10,-25 yr. summaries, instead. Provide detailed routings/data as supplemental document. • Detailed routings have been removed and replaced with the 2, 10,and 25 year events for each basin as requested. 34. Sheet 6: Recommend OPA 1 Q25 design, since no emergency spillway. OPA 1 must provide adequate protection. OTV MP shows pipe outfall located 50-ft. from Lickinghole Creek. • Outlet protection at sediment basin#1 has been revised to Q25 design for adequate protection. 35. Sheet 6: Toe of dam=620.00 appears inconsistent with profile. • Basin profile has been revised to match toe of dam accurately. 36. Sheet 7: Recommend revise top of dam Elev. to 657.20, and INV out=649.97 to INV out=651.5, consistent with MP. Goal is to avoid reconstruction during conversion to SWM facility. Adjust INV in=and riser data, as necessary. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 15] • See response for comment#26. WPO-2016-00009 3/18/2016 4 lisid 37. Sheet 8: Recommend a lity outfall pipe DIA, L, location match MP pipe DIA=18", L =120'±. INV out is identical w/OTV MP. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 16] • See response for comment#26. Sheet 9: 38. Design notes/details should reflect concerns expressed during review of blocks 11, 14, 12, 15 Amended, WPO201500066. There is trace reference to critical geotechnical aspects of design; nothing on sheet 9. • Dam construction notes have been added to the basin profiles for clarification on the design aspect. 39. Ref.VSMH, First Edit., 1999, Min. Std. 3.01, Earthen Embankment—Specify embankment design. Design/show cutoff trench, drains, impervious core,etc., in profile view. (Ref. VSMH, Fig. 3.01-1a/-lb(homogenous/zoned) • A schematic of each basin has been added to the basin profile sheets for clarification on embankment design as requested. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, (21.A44,4,7 Jeremy Fox WPO-2016-00009 3/18/2016 5 r , kid Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 Site(WPO201600009): 1. Note:With decision to reference Master Plan for Old Trail(OTV MP),with CGP(VAR100043)valid through 2024(w/renewal in 2019),and with initial SWM Application for blocks 10, 16, 17,and 18 expected soon,it may be possible to approve this ESCP(w/revisions),process ESC bond,and issue a Grading Permit prior to final detailed SWM facility design approval. Much depends on timing and form of initial SWM Application: substantial deviation from OTV MP could derail any effort to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP approval for these blocks. If SWMP bears close similarity to OTV MP and if County/Applicant are close to agreement on OTV MP,then it may be possible to issue a Grading Permit prior to SWMP Approval for blocks 10, 16, 17, 18. This may help,or be offer of limited benefit given required level of coordination with Parks and Recreation and agreements likely necessary to locate permanent SWM facilities on County Parks and Recreation property(TMP#55E-01-H). Easements may exist,but additional deeded access from County to Applicant may be required for SWM facilities L-2/L-3. Further,with final detailed SWM plan design approval a prerequisite to Site Plan(SDP201600006)/Final Plat approval for blocks 10, 16, 17,and 18;with Variance to ZMA200400024/GDP sheet 3 a prerequisite to County ability to apply OTV MP,a series of steps is required prior to sale of Lots in these blocks. Engineering will try to expedite review. .PDF preview is available for limited design checks. It is possible up to 5 plans may be under review at once:Final Site/Final Plat,WPO,ROAD,and Zoning Variance Exhibit;this,in Addition to OTV MP—print plans are essential to help avoid errors and mistakes. IGIS/Approx.Location OW MP BMPs L-2,L-3(TMP#55E-O1-H)] Note:L-2 may not serve blocks 10, 16, 17,and 18—reference to L-2 may be misplaced. , 0........lkiiiikiiiroop.._, Nmor ........,,..,, or j , ,, 111111 '7 IV 44444410, i 0.- 4 i ,..,- i Save wap ac In.ape 2. This is an ESCP–please remove labels SWM-1,SWM-2,and SWM-3/all sheets. , 3. Replace Ex. SWM-2 labels with Ex. SB2/all sheets. 4. Replace SWM-1,SWM-3 labels with SB1,SB3/all sheets. Sheet 2: 5. Show/label 50-ft distance and 100-ft WPO stream buffers for Lickinghole Creek and Slabtown Branch. 6. Recommend reference Stantec Old Trail Village Stormwater Master Plan/5 Feb 2016 on Overall Plan sheet. 7. Recommend add Future BMP L-2 to Existing Sediment Basin WPO#201300082 label. 8. Revise sediment basin profile titles(sheets 6,7,8)to read SB 1,SB2/Modified,SB3,respectively. 9. Revise routing data block text(sheets 6,7,8)to eliminate reference to SWM;instead ref. sediment basins. (Also,see item#33) 10. Note: SWMP routings when submitted may reference detention/retention basins,and ideally reference L-3, SS=3,S-12,consistent with OTV MP. 11. Sheet 3:Provide trapping device,E side Fielding Run,opposite Claire Mill Circle(>100' L slope). SF alone is insufficient. 12. Sheet 3:Provide diversion dike upslope of SF,E of Fielding Run opposite 5 lots at N end of the street. Sheets 3,4: 13. Provide SAF,each sediment trap/basin. 14. Revise CE symbol to read PCE(paved CE),consistent with detail,sheet 5. 15. Revise Limits of Disturbance labels to include 27.13 Acres. 16. Provide additional existing contour labels. Sheet 4: 17. Proposed contour labels difficult to read;increase pitch. 18. Revise drainage divide around SB3;show divide at Elev.650±. [ref.profile/sheet 8] 19. Provide SF,E side Fielding Run Drive,Sta.31+40-33+40±. 20. Revise drainage divide E of Fielding Run Drive,beginning Sta.31+40±;divide is shown running east, parallel with contours;revise to show running NE along ridge(proposed contours). 21. Provide diversion(250'±)to direct runoff along proposed contours,N edge limits of disturbance into SB-1. 22. Reference sediment basin outfall/riprap protection details on sheets 6,7,8(OP1A,OP2A,OP3A). 23. Shift diversion/DV out of sidewalk,NW corner,intersection Golf Drive and Fielding Run Drive. 24. Consider/provide SB-1 baffle,if necessary,to increase flow path of runoff entering from S to prevent short- circuiting. 25. Eliminate 'SWM POND(See Master Plan)'Note. Provide Title sheet or Sheet 2 reference to Master Plan. 26. Proposed sediment basin embankments,berm elevations,contours,outfall pipe locations,INV elevations, pipe lengths/DIA,primary riser locations/Elev.,and grading should match OTV MP BMP LL=3,SS=3,S-12 design parameters,if possible. Avoid need to replace/relocate through-dam pipe outfalls requiring embankment tear-down to convert sediment basins to permanent SWM facilities. 27. Sheet 5: Silt Fence drainage installation detail:revise detail to provide gap in SF downslope of sediment basin pipe outfall/riprap protection. Place stone in gaps. SF/stone should not be required downslope of SB outfall protection,but perimeter SF/stone is appropriate at these points until slopes stabilize. Sheets 6,7,8: 28. Profiles/All sheets: Show dewatering device,dry storage/clean-out elevation[Ref.VA DSWC detail]. 29. Provide conventional flat/level top of embankment;anticipate berm will provide vehicular access. Eliminate prism berm design. 30. Provide 10'-wide berm if embankment to provide facility(Maintenance vehicle)access. 31. Design/show pipe collars:Calc.saturated length;provide number of required collars and dimensions. 32. Label slope(3:1,4:1,etc.)—left-side slope/each profile view. Match L_3,SS=3,S-12 design,if possible. 33. Remove HydroCAD detailed routings data from plan sheets 6,7,8;provide Q2,-10,-25 yr.summaries, instead. Provide detailed routings/data as supplemental document. 34. Sheet 6:Recommend OPA1 Q25 design,since no emergency spillway. OPA1 must provide adequate protection. OTV MP shows pipe outfall located 50-ft. from Lickinghole Creek. 35. Sheet 6:Toe of dam=620.00 appears inconsistent with profile. 36. Sheet 7:Recommend revise top of dam Elev.to 657.20,and INV out=649.97 to INV out=651.5, consistent with MP. Goal is to avoid reconstruction during conversion to SWM facility. Adjust INV in= and riser data,as necessary. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 15] 37. Sheet 8:Recommend facility outfall pipe DIA,L,location match MP. MP pipe DIA=18",L=120'±. INV out is identical w/OTV MP. [Ref OTV MP Fig. 16] 11100 Sheet 9: 38. Design notes/details should reflect concerns expressed during review of blocks 11, 14, 12, 15 Amended, WPO201500066. There is trace reference to critical geotechnical aspects of design;nothing on sheet 9. 39. Ref.VSMH,First Edit., 1999,Min. Std.3.01,Earthen Embankment—Specify embankment design. Design/show cutoff trench,drains,impervious core,etc.,in profile view. (Ref.VSMH,Fig.3.01-1a/-lb (homogenous/zoned)) FILE:temp030516_WPO201600009_OTV blocks 10, 16, 17, 18.docx 1-12 SECTION I-3 BARRIER INSTALLATION CRITERIA BARRIER WARRANTS The determining warrants for Traffic Barriers on VDOT projects are (1) Embankment Heights (see below) and (2) Fixed and Hazardous Objects within the Clear Zone (see TABLE 1-3-1). AT OBVIOUS NEEDS SUCH AS BRIDGES,LARGE SYSTEM TRAFFIC FILLS FILLS END WALLS,PARALLEL WATER HAZARDS,ETC., CLASSIFICATION VOLUMES OVER OVER AND FILLS WHERE RECOMMENDED DURING 7.5' 15' FIELD INSPECTION FILLS WITHOUT INTERSTATE- RECOVERABLE PRIMARY SLOPES AND FILLS ALL ARTERIAL WITH RECOVERABLE SLOPES ADT OVER 1000 SECONDARY AND ADT 1000- FRONTAGE 250 *4 - ROADS ADT LESS THAN 250 URBAN ALL * Exception - Bristol, Salem, and Staunton Districts. Traffic barriers are to be provided only at obvious needs such as bridges, large endwalls, parallel water hazards, etc., and fills where recommended at field inspection. When fill slopes are 3:1 or flatter, a barrier is not required unless there are hazardous obstacles within the clear zone limits. This may include the clear runout area if the fill slope is between 3:1 and 4:1 (see Appendix A Figure A-2-4). In some limited situations in which the embankment slopes significantly downward, a vehicle could encroach farther from the through traveled way and the clear zone might not be adequate. In these cases, guardrail should be considered. w .*Ner Ammy George From: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT) <Shelly.Plaster@vdot.virginia.gov> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:50 AM To: Ammy George Cc: Dave Brockman; Bill Ledbetter; Chris Mulligan; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Importance: High Good morning Ammy, The centerline radius of 110' is an acceptable solution provided that a 20 mph minimum design speed is utilized. 20 mph advisory speed limit signs shall be posted along with any other horizontal or vertical curve warning signs as warranted. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns. Regards, SletztA j A. Player Land Development Engineer VIDOT Charlottesville Residency 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville,VA 22911 Phone: (434)422-9894 Fax: (434) 984-1521 From: Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@roudabush.com] Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 1:53 PM To: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT) Cc: Dave Brockman; Bill Ledbetter; Chris Mulligan; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Good afternoon Shelly and Troy, I know I have been sending you many different versions of the south-eastern corner of Rowcross Street near Blocks 18 and 31. This should be the last one. I have solved the sight distance issue - the intersection of Priory and Rowcross (previously it was located between Lots 24 and 25) has been removed.A cul-de-sac or T-intersection is no longer needed on Rowcross Street.As a result, I am only asking for a determination on the minimum radius. The attached layout has a centerline radius of 110'.We are still anticipating a traffic volume under 400 vehicles per day in this area, and feel that the 110' radius will safely serve the driving public. .444.nte George 1 t -tor "low From:Ammy George Sent:Thursday, August 20, 2015 12:33 PM To: 'Plaster, Shelly(VDOT)' <Shelly.Plaster@vdot.virginia.gov> Cc: 'Dave Brockman' <dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; Chris Mulligan <CMulligan@roudabush.com>; 'Austin, Nathran. (VDOT)' <Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Good morning Shelly, I spoke with Troy last Friday about the options for the corner of Rowcross Street. The mini-roundabout was a no and a t-intersection with a cul-de-sac will not work. I have attached another option to solve the sight distance issue. I have removed the through movement to Rowcross Street from Perott Street. Pettyward and Perott now form a loop to access Fielding Run Drive. Troy mentioned that VDOT may be willing to allow us to use a lower design speed at this corner if it was marked appropriately. Based upon that idea, I calculated the minimum radius using AASHTO's equation for a minimum radius on a rural or urban streets that took into account the side friction factor and design speed; the minimum radius for 25 mph is 154.3' and the minimum radius for 20 mph is 83.3'. The radius I used in this design is roughly above the average of the two - it is now a 125' radius at the centerline. We would use the appropriate signs to reflect the 20 mph design speed. Would the attached solution be acceptable for a public road? ,vu.mrJ, George From:Ammy George Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:49 AM To: 'Plaster, Shelly (VDOT)' <Shelly.Plaster@vdot.virginia.gov> Cc: Dave Brockman <dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; Chris Mulligan <CMulligan@roudabush.com>; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) <Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Would you support a mini-roundabout as detailed in VDOT Road Design Manual,Appendix F? 45' inscribed radius with a 20' travelway? Akuvu.rJ, George From: Plaster,Shelly (VDOT) [mailto:Shelly.Plaster@vdot.virginia.gov] Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:15 AM To:Ammy George<AGeorge@roudabush.com> Cc: Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; Chris Mulligan <CMulligan@roudabush.com>; Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) <Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov> Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Good morning Ammy, 2 Troy and I took a look at your revised lays "ut and we feel that it is not a suitable alter rctive as submitted (since a 90 degree turn is still proposed). We recommend a "T" type of intersection, with a cul-de-sac on the end, or the minimum curve radius to be met. Kind regards, Sk-e Ly From: Ammy George [mailto:AGeorge@aroudabush.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 3:53 PM To: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT) Cc: Dave Brockman; Bill Ledbetter; Chris Mulligan Subject: RE: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Good afternoon Shelly, I am requesting that you disregard the previous layout I sent to you on August 4, 2015. The layout of Rowcross Street from August 4 did not take into account the sight distance line from the intersection of Perott Street and Rowcross Street. The sight distance line cut across several lots making this an undesirable and unworkable solution. In the attached layout for Rowcross Street in Block 18,the 110' radius has been removed.A turn-around has been placed at the near 90° intersection of the two tangents. The turn-around is 45'at the face of curb. Stop signs have also been located at each sides of the turn-around. The interior curve radius of 25' still allows for larger vehicles to navigate this segment of the roadway. The reasons I listed on August 4 to allow for a smaller radius still apply for the revised layout. The traffic count for this segment of Rowcross will still be under 400 vehicles per day, with the traffic moving to Old Trail Drive via Upland or Golf Drive. The stop signs along Rowcross at the turn-around allows for the driver safety and flexibility for the future development on Block 31 with the possibility of more parallel parking or lot access points at this point of the roadway. I would like to get your feedback on this matter this week. Please call or email me to discuss this further. Antnurj, creorge From:Ammy George Sent:Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:19 PM To: Plaster, Shelly (VDOT) <Shelly.Plaster@vdot.virginia.gov> Cc: Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; Chris Mulligan <CMulligan@roudabush.com> Subject: Old Trail Village Blocks 10, 16-18 Good morning Shelly, I am following up on a comment you made on SDP-2015-000-28 Old Trail Blocks 10, 16, 17 & 18. Comment 20 indicates that the minimum radius on Rowcross did not meet the minimum of 200' for a roadway with up to 2,000 average daily trips (ADT). 3 I have attached a revised layouf for that corner of Rowcross. I used a' 0' radius for that corner based upon several reasons: • This section of Rowcross Street will not see over 400 ADT. Per the approved Master Plan, approximately 26 lots were fronting on RowCross at this corner; more current design iterations have the number of lots fronting on this corner at less than 26. In either scenario, there will never be more than 26 lots. If we were to assume 10 trips per day per lot, the total anticipated ADT is less than or equal to 260. Additionally, most of the traffic generated from the east side of Old Trail Village will move towards Old Trail Drive using Upland Drive or Golf Drive. • In the Subdivision Street Guide,Appendix B1, stated that streets with less than 400 ADT could use the AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design for Very Low-Volume Local Roads. The mention of this indicated that a lower traffic volume would affect the minimum design guidelines for Rowcross. • In the Subdivision Street Guide,Appendix B, allowed for traffic volumes up to 400 ADT in the design guidelines. The minimum radius for those types of road is 110' measured at the centerline. While this appendix is only used in subdivisions before 2009, it still gives a better representation of the anticipated traffic volume and its relation to the minimum centerline radius. Please let me know if the 110' radius shown on the attached pdf is acceptable to VDOT. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. , kukite 4eofge, CL..4 Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville,Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 434-296-5220 fax 4 ilid ‘4111110 2009 Edition Page 109 04 Minimum spacing between warning signs with different messages should be based on the estimated PRT for driver comprehension of and reaction to the second sign. 05 The effectiveness of the placement of warning signs should be periodically evaluated under both day and night conditions. Option: 06 Warning signs that advise road users about conditions that are not related to a specific location,such as Deer Crossing or SOFT SHOULDER,may be installed in an appropriate location,based on engineering judgment,since they are not covered in Table 2C-4. Section 2C.06 Horizontal Alignment Warning Signs Support: 01 A variety of horizontal alignment warning signs(see Figure 2C-1),pavement markings(see Chapter 3B),and delineation(see Chapter 3F)can be used to advise motorists of a change in the roadway alignment. Uniform application of these traffic control devices with respect to the amount of change in the roadway alignment conveys a consistent message establishing driver expectancy and promoting effective roadway operations. The design and application of horizontal alignment warning signs to meet those requirements are addressed in Sections 2C.06 through 2C.15. Figure 2C-1. Horizontal Alignment Signs and Plaques / /\> IIII, 41147\\ • W1-i W1-1a W1-2 W1-2a W1-3 W1-4 • +MI < 0 • • W1-5 W1-6 W1-8 W1-10 W1-10a W1-10b • • • • (314)r • W1-10c W1-10d W1-10e W1-11 W1-13 EXIT RAMP 0 EXIT RAMP Q Q 35 25 35 MPH 25 25 MPH MPH MPH MPH W1-15 W13-1P W13-2 W13-3 W13-6 W13-7 Note:Turn arrows and reverse turn arrows may be substituted for the curve arrows and reverse curve arrows on the W1-10 series signs where appropriate. December 2009 Sect.2C.05 to 2C.06 r ,,,1•0 Page 110 2009 Edition Standard: 02 In advance of horizontal curves on freeways,on expressways,and on roadways with more than 1,000 AADT that are functionally classified as arterials or collectors,horizontal alignment warning signs shall be used in accordance with Table 2C-5 based on the speed differential between the roadway's posted or statutory speed limit or 85th-percentile speed,whichever is higher,or the prevailing speed on the approach to the curve,and the horizontal curve's advisory speed. Option: 03 Horizontal Alignment Warning signs may also be used on other roadways or on arterial and collector roadways with less than 1,000 AADT based on engineering judgment. Section 2C.07 Horizontal Alignment Signs (WI-1 through W1-5, W1-l1, W1-15) Standard: 01 If Table 2C-5 indicates that a horizontal alignment sign(see Figure 2C-1)is required,recommended, or allowed,the sign installed in advance of the curve shall be a Curve(W1-2)sign unless a different sign is recommended or allowed by the provisions of this Section. 02 A Turn(W1-1)sign shall be used instead of a Curve sign in advance of curves that have advisory speeds of 30 mph or less(see Figure 2C-2). Guidance: 03 Where there are two changes in roadway alignment in opposite directions that are separated by a tangent distance of less than 600 feet, the Reverse Turn(W1-3)sign should be used instead of multiple Turn(W1-1)signs and the Reverse Curve(W1-4)sign should be used instead of multiple Curve(W1-2)signs. Option: 04 A Winding Road(Wl-5)sign may be used instead of multiple Turn(W1-1)or Curve(W1-2)signs where there are three or more changes in roadway alignment each separated by a tangent distance of less than 600 feet. 05 A NEXT XX MILES (W7-3aP)supplemental distance plaque(see Section 2C.55)may be installed below the Winding Road sign where continuous roadway curves exist for a specific distance. 06 If the curve has a change in horizontal alignment of 135 degrees or more,the Hairpin Curve(W1-11)sign may be used instead of a Curve or Turn sign. 07 If the curve has a change of direction of approximately 270 degrees,such as on a cloverleaf interchange ramp, the 270-degree Loop(W1-15)sign may be used instead of a Curve or Turn sign. Guidance: 08 When the Hairpin Curve sign or the 270-degree Loop sign is installed, either a One-Direction Large Arrow (W1-6)sign or Chevron Alignment(W1-8)signs should be installed on the outside of the turn or curve. Table 2C-5. Horizontal Alignment Sign Selection Difference Between Speed Limit and AdvisorySpeed Type i yp Horizontal Alignment Sign 5 mph 10 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph or more Turn(W1-1),Curve(W1- 2),Reverse Turn(W1-3), Reverse Curve(W1-4), Winding Road(W1-5),and Combination Horizontal Recommended Required Required Required Required Alignment/Intersection (W10-1) (see Section 2C.07 to determine which sign to use) Advisory Speed Plaque (W13-1P) Recommended Required Required Required Required Chevronsa ion o /or One Optional Recommended Required Required Required Direction Large Arrow(W1-6) q Exit Speed(W13-2)and Ramp Speed(W13-3)on Optional Optional Recommended Required Required exit ramp Note:Required means that the sign and/or plaque shall be used,recommended means that the sign and/or plaque should be used,and optional means that the sign and/or plaque may be used. See Section 2C.06 for roadways with less than 1,000 ADT. Sect.2C.06 to 2C.07 December 2009 ‘4111101 ‘rassl Blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 Site(SDP201400006): 1. Petyward Lane serving Lots 16-20 and 32-34(8 lots)with 30'private RW is required to meet VDOT Stds. ACDSM,7.F.Table,Private Street(6-lot)Standards are the"same as VDOT standards." Also:please see 14-412.A.3. (b.)—VDOT standard apply. Proposed design is not deemed equivalent to or greater than the applicable standard in the Design Standard Manual. Proposed 37' CL radius is equivalent to certain entrance standards,is far less than the least minimum radius found in VDOT Road and Bridge Standards Vol.2,TC-5.01,Sheet 802.24,Design Factors for a Design Speed of 20 MPH(127-ft, 160-ft, 179-ft...). Also:VDOT Road Design Manual,Appendix B(1),Subdivision Street Design Guide(SSAR),Table 1,for Min design speed of 25 MPH for up to 2000 ADT,minimum CL radius=200' Design does not adequately protect public health,safety or welfare. Engineering could support 20 MPH 127 fi radius jfadditional VDOT design factors for a design speed of 20 MPH were met,but this appears impossible with subdivision layout—only 70'±separate 37'R curves. VDOT R&B Std.Nol.2,TC-5.01/802.24,requires Lr,super elevation runoff section,and Lt,tangent runout section. Design should provide minimum horizontal curve radius that satisfies:VDOT R&B/Road Design Manual,and Albemarle County subdivision ordinance and ACDSM. [14-412.A.3.(b)allows agent to approve VDOT standards for Mountainous Terrain. See GS-SSR/Table 1, below—R=100] I FOR MINIMUM DESIGN FACTORS FOR VARIOUS DESIGN SPEEDS FOR URBAN CONDITIONS SEE SHEETS 802.24 THRU 802.31 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION STREETS(GS-SSR) TABLE 1-CURB AND GUTTER SECTION- 1 For mountainous terrain, maximum percent of grade may be 16% for ADT up to 400 and 14%for 401-4000 ADT. 2. 26'allowed for streets<400 vpd with concurrence of local officials. 3. 36'allowed for streets that are internal to the sub-division. with concurrence of local officials. 4. Pavement widths may be reduced if parking is not allowed. See page 12 of this Guide for roadway width exceptions criteria. 5. 100'minimum radius allowed in mountainous terrain 6. For curb and gutter streets with parking lanes, the clear zone is accommodated within the parking lane. However, VDOT has established a 3' minimum setback requirement behind the curb. 7. Based on 25 MPH Design Speed Overall Plan,sheet 2,shows design of Petyward Lane is similar to prior-approved designs in blocks 13, 11, and 14. Engineering supports VDOT standards,yet if Lots 21-30 have frontage on Rowcross(please confirm w/Planning),it appears that only that portion of Petyward from Fielding Run to midway through the 37'-R curve at Lot 20 is,in strict terms,a private street. We strongly discourage blending streets and alleys. I am unsure if the approach has been tried or approved at Old Trail or elsewhere,but proposed design is similar to streets in blocks 11 and 14. The 37'-R curve does not meet VDOT Standards,but Killdeer Lane(Creekside)may suggest a possible approach:a median that signals road END. A similar feature could be used to indicate transition,street to alley,but design must accommodate fire rescue needs. An alley has no horizontal curve geometric standards. No combination of calming,control,signs,etc.will revise Engineering belief that VDOT standards apply to Petyward at this point,but perhaps combination of median calming,pavement reflectors,signs,etc,could be used to indicate street end/transition to alley. Killdeer Lane,image below(note 110'R),may provide ideas or basis of discussion with Planning/Engr. 11111101 • R A INTERSECTION OF JARNANS GAP RDAD / ��I�L�L�Ip;LA . l 6 KILLDEER LANE IS UPGRADED / Kp0.�5�G w, p/�1�� FOR JIE JFR011 A. 2+26 R .;IN: / (TO SIA. I f+00. 4. END CURB AND GUTTER l fo AT STA. 12+15 - // I ( ' BM IN ' )jr- t I I' POWER P• E / �� '�ILLDEER OAO I •i i k, , EXISTING 0'ROW .., - N8854.51 T ! � 1 � I I l C 1 I �PBN.SP S 32.13' / ';, 49 1 O-MO At O q9' '111!_ -_. .STA._ + ,' �� r' - �Dt !44,44, l'.11"\°‘ � OA - . ��.{.,,.4._ • T/3TIA 1 \I8 �;7, •• :'0:140 AC. o. a :. .. �/ .•P•..,., a6, N� LA: 0.1 AC. �.. 0.047 AC. J 2 ��� "� / PC TTINGRkE IST ��p� 0.03 AC. 31, - AND r T.. / P "NE .1S\DC ILS * \. \\ *4>\, i , WO /y 1 F f C \ \\t\\� 04_. _ it tc. xo'fF a ., \ 0.124 4 i 'f �f !f'cic OP \� 0. �N. 0.043/AC. (V*, i;,+i .: Ck\,C 2 PROPOSED 5' p,, , i��° Per+TLwc-S� B SIDEWALK y, cot cc \ ' \ 72' � 0 \ \\,,t •" 1,1�•b,43 �� G'. p \, sl4 \ \ '�N a<G�'ti Q.D33r.i %,4 ,,. 7,,___ �V J \R. 3' I N. 0128 AC �l�,t• 0.045 AC. -'.— �P -. c �xo ''l • y0 _ O� 'b. ��� y1$1 PAW''' as ,LA: 0.103 AC. ,. N BA: 0.031 A9.' / ", '�� , Also,photo, 12/7/15 1 1 (11 '4xrA 2. Sheets 4-5:Add note"Coordinate with VDOT on need to repair or replace pavement on Glen Valley and Upland Drives at Intersections with Fielding Run if ongoing grading/development have damaged asphalt surface. Note applies to very limited portions:Fielding Run to points east(hammerhead)of intersections." Areas have stored debris. Surface may be fine,or may require repair(Upland/Fielding Run—photos 9/5/15). t fir.«' ., 44 . _ .4 r rpt ,* * 41110140164* h: Ai 0 r a 3. Sheet 6—Label EP-EP:Highgate Row,Rowcross St,and Golf Drive. 4. Sheet 6—Beechen Lane: Show roll-top/CG-6 transitions at inlets. 5. Sheets 6,7,9 make reference to wood post guardrail—Provide VDOT Detail. 6. Sheets 6,7,8—Recommend label/reference speed limit,all streets. Sheet 7 7. Confirm 3-way stop intersection at Fielding Run Drive/Upland Drive. 8. Provide street sign at Int.Fielding Run Drive/Upland Drive. 9. Recommend label CG-6 on streets where used. 10. Recommend sidewalks for Lots 9-13(defer to Planning). 11. Label EP-EP,Highgate Row. Sheet 8 12. Label EP-EP,Rowcross Street. 13. Recommend label CG-6 on streets where used. 14. Revise C19 CL R to 127' Min.(see#1). (Id (;) 15. Provide guardrail mounted delineators/safety measures as required(ref.MUTCD). For example chevron curve/caution signs. Post C19 curve 20 MPH.[VDOT Road and Bridge Standards Vol.2,TC-5.01,Sheet 802.24] 16. Sheets 9, 10, 11: See WP0201600009/ESCP comments(to be issued soon). 17. Sheets 9, 10, 11:provide walk/curb,guardrail break/gap for permanent vehicular SWM facility access. Sheet 10 18. Revise water meter placement. 5-ft. space(side-by-side meters)has proven unworkable design(Collins Engineering),block 23,Baywick Circle,where it is too late to resolve a situation that includes intense homeowner dissatisfaction w/driveway entrance design. Note CG-9B,Standard Entrance Gutter,sheet 13: this detail will not work with driveway entrances separated by 5'. Encourage visit/review block 23. Please provide separate,per-lot(individual)water laterals that avoid meter placement in narrow 5' width between driveways. Lots 1-6,8-13. I I/2 WIDTH OF ENTRANCE EXISTING OR PROPOSED EXPANSION JOINT SIDEWALK OR SIDEWALK SPACE /I! Z J EXPANSION JOINT E Es 3 U W 0 CURB INCLUDED IN tw7 ENTRANCE GUTTER ed 11 w w a a Z fail W '14 FLOW LINE O� ENTRANCE WMINTH IMUM x EXPANSION JOINT DESIRABLE MIM16' o ABSOLUTE MINIMUM 12' 3 EDGE OF PAVEMENT C HALF PLAN Photos—Baywick Circle/does not match CG-9B(County photos) Sharp curb taper at sidewalk is major source of complaint(wheel strike,car drop) 4 /i n ' tat ffi-f "k,, a r ' n l -,......c. ': __ ‘,,,,T.A:. .,,,, tif , ',-.,., ° -.A :.''.,,: ..-11 -..--': ..,...\s'' , I r......�e t ,, ,11',i, +r._"fit' � -,,,,„4,'aux z 4 • l.a. ��� f, 1 1 01 F V t a w 05/06/2014 • • • Alf 19. Related to item#18,revise driveway entrance design to match CG-9B dimensions. 20. Recommend show houses on Lots 1-22,30-32. 21. Provide sanitary lateral,Lot 32. 22. Avoid sanitary line/guardrail conflict. 23. Recommend adopt variable width private drainage easement design that reduces width on residential lot portions across Lots 10-12,similar to block 15 ROAD Plan field revision to private drainage easements. Sheet 11 24. Avoid sanitary line/guardrail conflict. 25. Please provide separate,per-lot(individual)water laterals that avoid meter placement in narrow 5' width between driveways: Lots 15-18,31-34. (see#18,above) 26. Sheet 13:Provide VDOT guardrail detail. [VDOT R&B SpecNol. 1 -GR-2,2A;sheets 1 and 2;rev.date 7/11] 27. Sheet 13:Recommend pavement design with Site Plan. Pavement design is required with ROAD Plan. 28. Recommend Site Plan reference Old Trail Stormwater Master Plan under review. 29. Provide Site Plan Note specifying that SWM design/Final SWM Plan required for a block be reviewed and approved prior to Site Plan approval of a specific block. 30. Recommend Applicant submit SWM plans for all blocks as soon as possible;recommend reference to design concepts presented in Stormwater Master Plan Update for Old Trail(MP),dated 5 Feb 2016. 31. Recommend Applicant work closely with Planning on variance required to ZMA200400024. Variance is necessary since Final detailed design plans will differ from Sheet 3,GDP,ZMA200400024. It is a certainty that SWM design required to support development of blocks 10, 16, 17, 18 requires Zoning Variance,though not,at this point,a rezoning. Engineering,Applicant,Stantec/RGA are likely nearing acceptance of MP. A prerequisite to Site Plan approval is Variance to ZMA200400024 GDP/Sheet 3. 32. Similar to#31,recommend Applicant coordinate with Parks and Recreation,as needed,to obtain legal Agreements that allow permanent SWM facilities on Parks and Recreation property. 33. Encourage Applicant to cross-reference ESC/ROAD plan comments(to be issued shortly). 34. Note:March Mountain,RGA,and Stantec have shown commitment and patience in meetings and studies focused on compliance with ZMA200400024,9VAC25-870-96,-97,-98,over a period of several years. Engineering appreciates this effort,recognizes Dave Brockman's attention to detail,RGA's response to comments and deliberate commitment to plan review relationship,Stantec's comprehensive design efforts. These combined provide level of assurance relative to ZMA,current requirements,and future needs. This commitment,if less than obvious,is no less true. We appreciate in particular William Ledbetter and Glenn Muckley whose sincerity,patience,and availability to Engineering are cause for optimism. Dave Brockman lends level of support vital to success. We are grateful to all three.