HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400054 Review Comments As-Built Reviews 2016-07-14 PHONE(434)977-0205
111FAX(434)296-5220
1i_ INFO@ROUDABUSH.COM
ROUDABUSH, GALE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAND SURVEYING ServingVirginia Since 1956
ENGINEERING 914 MONTTCELLO ROAD
LAND PLANNING
CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA
22902
WILLIAM J.LEDBETTER,L.S. J.CLINT HARMON,L.S.
CHRISTOPHER C.MULLIGAN,P.E. DAVID A.JORDAN,L.S.
AMMY M.GEORGE,L.A. BRIAN D.JAMISON,L.S.
MEMO
Date: June 20, 2016
To: File
From: Jim Taggart, P.E.
RE: Grace Estates- SWM as-builts
Reviewing the Grace Estates stormwater pond situation: By shifting the pond down the hill, it picked up a bit more
drainage area than planned; now about 2.03 ac. The writer informally ran some hydro and routed 2, 10 and 100 year
events into the as-built system. 100 year modelling is overwhelmed by the volume as expected (probably the same as the
original design) and will be excluded. As decreased capacity seems to be the primary potential concern, the focus is on
the 10 year event.
The asbuilt scenario also reduced the size of the outfall pipe from 6"to 4"and held the original principle of no pond outlet
until depth reaches 12". Not sure what the original design intent would have been, but the pond bottom seems to be
functioning less than optimally with storm volumes held indefinitely.
In short, it might be a good idea to install an orifice in the riser. Something akin to the old "water quality orifice"; a 3"bore
hole into the riser at ground level to allow stagnant water to drain away at a slow, controlled rate.
The writer has taken the liberty of including two pdf stage/storage curves of the pond (see below).
The first(GraceSTAGESTORasblt.pdf)shows the 10 year storm elevations over time in the current structure. The 10
year storm appears to be contained behind the top of the berm (field located at 699.8 (see the as-built plan)) since the`
routed elevation computes to 699.73. The release of stormwater stagnates around elevation 699.0 and holds that depth
indefinitely, subject only to evaporation, plant uptake or infiltration.
The second attachment(GraceSTAGESTORwithORF.pdf) shows the 10 year storm elevations over time if the structure
were fitted with a 3"orifice at elevation 697.8 (the pond bottom). The 10 year storm here also appears to be contained
behind the top of the berm (field located at 699.8 (see the as-built plan)) and this routed elevation computes only sightly
lower to 699.67. The release of stormwater gradually continues to zero some 18-20 hours after the storm event.
This solution of a 3"orifice seems to help the functionality of the pond and better address the intent of the stormwater
regulations. A heavy duty screen would be advisable at the orifice.
GraceSTAGESTORasblt.pdf
Hydrograph Report
liydraflow Flydrographs by htelsolve v92 Nbnday,Jun 20,2016
Hyd. No. 2
PostDevAsBlt Runoff
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.498 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 762 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd.volume = 9,481 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 -AsBuilt PostDev Max. Elevation = 699.73 ft
Reservoir name = SWM Pond Max. Storage = 5,418 cuft
Storage hdication rrethod used.
PostDev AsBlt Runoff
Eley(ft) Bey(ft)
Hyd. No 2-10 Year
701.00 701.00
700.00 700.00
699.00 699.00
898.00 698.00
697.00 697.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time(hrs)
1 SWM Pond
•
GraceSTAGESTORwithORF.pdf
Hyd. No. 2
PostDevAsBlt Runoff
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.496 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 762 min
Time interval = 2 min Hyd.volume = 12,835 curt
inflow hyd. No. = 1 -AsBuilt PostDev Max. Elevation = 699.67 ft
Reservoir name = SWM Pond Max.Storage = 5,264 cuft
Storage hdication rrethod used.
PostDev AsBlt Runoff
Elev(ft) Elev(it)
Hyd. No. 2— 10 Year
701.00 701.00
700.00 700.00
699.00 699.00
698.00 698.00
687.00 697 00
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
lime(his)
/ /1. SWM Pond
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: Grace Estate Tasting Room VvP0201400054
Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale and Assoc. [bill@roudabush.com]
Owner or rep.: MOUNT JULIET FARM LLC
Plan received date: 20 June 2016
Date of comments: 14 July 2016
Reviewer: Max Greene
Thank you for submitting the as -built plans for the Grace Estate Tasting Room Storm Water
Management Facility. The SWM (VSMP) plans from the original water protection plan
WP0201400054 have been compared to the as -built plan and the site work does not appear to
agree with the approved plan. The calculation for the as -built condition of the basin is needed to
address the discrepancies and a VSMP plan of amendment is required to address the deficiencies.
The following checklist details requirements missing from the as -built package submittal per the
County Construction Records checklist for VSMP as -built:
1. Inspection Records
a. No inspection records were found in the submittal package
2. Video Pipe Inspection
a. Not required for this project
3. Updated Location
a. Item appears adequately addressed at this time
4. Verified Drainage Area Map
a. Drainage area could not be verified with the as -built plan. The parking and access
road stormwater drainage are to be captured in the SWM structure. Please submit
a plan that shows the total area per approved plan and area of capture as
constructed.
5. Current Physical and Topographic Survey
a. Interior slope of dam appears to exceed the 2:1 slope and is showing signs of
erosion and failure. This was not depicted on the as -built plan.
b. Bathymetric or more in-depth survey is required to confirm basin volume.
6. Plants, Location and Type
a. The basin will need to be lined with grass per approved plans. Grass will need to
be well established prior to bond release/reduction
7. Plans and Profiles for all Culverts, Pipes, Risers, Weirs, and Drainage Structures
a. As -built profiles show the dam height of approximately 8' from toe to top of dam.
The plan view does not agree with the profile detail. Please clarify. Site visit,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
dam area to stream do not match the as -built plans. The dam area appears to have
been filled and feathered out toward the stream
b. As -built plan states a 4" drain pipe was installed but a 6" pipe was observed in the
field and will be corrected on the as -built plan.
8. Computations
a. Could not verify basin volume with this submittal. Provide bathymetric survey to
prove volume is equal to or better than requirements of approved plan.
9. Ditch Lines
a. Proposed ditch does not appear on the as -built plan submittal. The ditches were
approved to capture the parking and access road impervious areas. The drainage
area could not be compared to the approved plan. Site visit, it appears portions of
the parking areas do not drain to the basin as designed.
10. Easements
a. Not required for this project
11. Guardrail, Fences or Other Safety Provisions
a. Not required for this project
12. Material Layers
a. Compaction tests and inspection reports are required. If the dam was not
constructed then it should be clarified on the profile details of actual construction.
13. Access Roads
a. Not required for this project
14. Compaction Reports
a. Compaction tests and inspection reports are required
15. Manufactures Certifications
a. Not required for this project
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/f
orms/En ing eering and _WPO _Forms/WPO _VSMP_Construction _Record _ Drawings Policy 23
May2014.pdf
The approved plan was based on a physical survey of the property and showed the actual 100'
Stream Buffer as measured from the existing stream. The GIS version of the buffer is therefore
not acceptable for as -built review. Please show the actual 100' stream buffer on the as -built plan.
The Stream buffer disturbance will need to be mitigated per County Code 17-600, Extent of
Stream Buffers; Retention and Establishment.
The basin does not appear to have adequate infiltration. The basin, as constructed, does not
appear to meet the minimum requirements of the approved design. This office recommends
amending the original SWM design to meet the State requirements for stormwater protection.
Please contact this office for clarification on the as -built plan requirements.
File: VSMP as -built review letter.doc
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 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 Permit plan review
Project title:
Grace Estate Winery
Project file number:
WP0201400054
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.:
MOUNT JULIET FARM LLC Uakebusching@graceestate.com]
Plan received date:
16 December 2014
19 November 2014
Date of comments: 15 January 2015
10 December 2014
Reviewers: Max Greene
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to
act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is Approved. The
VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. Not found in submittal.
Comment adequately addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Not found in submittal.
Comment adequately addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is Approved. The stormwater management plan content requirements can be
found in County Code section 17-403.
1. VSMP application form and fee with owner's signature is required for review.
2. Comment adequately addressed.
3. VRRM spread sheet is required for review.
4. Comment adequately addressed.
5. Actual construction details for basin are required. (to scale)
6. Comment adequately addressed.
7. Point of analysis should be the toe of basin or basin outlet.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
8. Comment adequately addressed.
9. Pavement surface detail is required.
10. Comment adequately addressed.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is Approved. The erosion control plan content requirements can be found in County
Code section 17-402.
1. Sediment control structure calculation and construction design detail are missing from
submittal.
2. Comment adequately addressed.
3. Additional SCC (to drain to basin) should be shown to capture the entrance road and
potential overflow parking area. (Level area across from construction staging area.)
4. Comment adequately addressed.
5. Drainage areas are missing.
6. Comment adequately addressed.
7. Please add this note to plan sheet: Should the temporary construction entrance not be
maintained properly or an excessive amount of soil found tracked onto the public
roadway, then a paved construction entrance, water tanker truck with 2 pressure washers
and a settling area may be required by the erosion and sediment control program
administrator.
8. Comment adequately addressed.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
ht!p://www.albemarle.or�z/deptforms.asp?department=cdenawpo
File: E1_vsmp_review_projectname.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
VSMP Permit plan review
Project title:
Grace Estate Winery
Project file number:
WP0201400054
Plan preparer:
Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.:
MOUNT JULIET FARM LLC bakebusching@graceestate.com]
Plan received date:
19 November 2014
Date of comments:
10 December 2014
Reviewers:
Max Greene
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to
act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The
rationale is given in the comments below. The application may be resubmitted for approval if all
of the items below are satisfactorily addressed. The VSMP application content requirements can
be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. Not found in submittal.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Not found in submittal.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
VSMP application form and fee with owner's signature is required for review.
2. VRRM spread sheet is required for review.
3. Actual construction details for basin are required. (to scale)
4. Point of analysis should be the toe of basin or basin outlet.
5. Pavement surface detail is required.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control
plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
1. Sediment control structure calculation and construction design detail are missing from
submittal.
2. Additional SCC (to drain to basin) should be shown to capture the entrance road and
potential overflow parking area. (Level area across from construction staging area.)
3. Drainage areas are missing.
4. Please add this note to plan sheet: Should the temporary construction entrance not be
maintained properly or an excessive amount of soil found tracked onto the public
roadway, then a paved construction entrance, water tanker truck with 2 pressure washers
and a settling area may be required by the erosion and sediment control program
administrator.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re -submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
ht!p://www.albemarle.or,-/deptforms.asp?department=cdenawpo
File: E1_vsmp_review_projectname.doc
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
Date of comments:
Reviewer:
Grace Estate Tasting Room WP0201400054
Collins Engineering
MOUNT JULIET FARM LLC Dakebusching@graceestate.com]
02 June 2014
26 June 2014
Max Greene
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (WP0201400054) submitted 02 June 2014 have
received Engineering Review and do not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist for
approval. The following item will be adequately addressed prior to final plan approval:
1. Site is not adequately protected from loss of soil per VESCH.
2. Silt fence is not adequate per VESCH Std. & Spec. 3.05 and at least one sediment trap
will be required.
3. Stormwater Management plan, application, and fee are required for new impervious areas.
4. Proposed grading will be shown on the plan.
5. Pavement surface detail is required for SWM plan.
6. Berm and rock check dam would require a variance and fee, but is not adequate as shown.
Standard sediment trap is required at this time.
7. Existing gravel road is within the limits of disturbance, will the existing road be up-
graded/repaired? If so, please show details for repair.
8. VDOT entrance permit may be required.
9. Handicap Parking area grades appear to be 15% and should be 5% slope or less in any
direction.
10. Please show the construction entrance to scale on the plan sheet.
11. One-way ingress/egress is shown. Two-way traffic should be a minimum 20' wide for
safety.
Additional comments and/or conditions may be forth coming due to requested changes for
approval.
Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 2 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and
narratives to Current Development Engineering along with the required review fee and transmittal form.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30-4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Max Greene at 434-296-5832 ext. 3283 or email mgreene@albemarle.org to
schedule an appointment.
File: CDDEl_esc_MRG_Grace Estate Winery.doc