HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201700023 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2017-05-31COUNTY 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: Oakleigh
Project file number: WP0201700023
Plan preparer:
Alan Franklin [alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
Owner or rep.:
George Ray [georgerayjr@gmail.com]
Plan received date:
Rev 1 — 3 Mar 2017
Rev 2 — April 24" 2017
Rev 3 — May 23rd 2017
Date of comments:
Rev 1 10 April 2017
Rev 2 — May 3rd 2017
Rev 3 — May 31" 2017
Reviewers:
Rev 1 — Bobby Jocz
Rev 2 — Rnhhv JOV7
Rev 3 — Bobby Jocz
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
application may be resubmitted for approval if all of the items below are satisfactorily addressed.
The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
[General] Add the WPO application number, WP0201700023, to both the cover sheet of the plan
set and the SWPPP booklet prior to final submission.
Rev 2 — Addressed
2. [General] Provide original signatures on PE seal for both the cover sheet of the plan set and
SWPPP booklet prior to final submission; 4 copies of the plans and 2 copies of the SWPPP will be
needed.
Rev 2 - Acknowledged
3. [General] Show proposed/future ROW limits, easements, and property lines.
Rev 2 — See comment B.12 below.
Rev 3 — Addressed
4. Topography should be field verified by the designer within the past year. Provide date of field
verification.
Rev 2 — Addressed
5. Please include an existing condition and grading plan sheets. Since the County reviews SDP and
WPO plans separately, this aids in review by providing additional information not currently
provided in the WPO plan. This includes the storm drain structure names, descriptions of existing
stormsewer, final site conditions, and other information. This material can be provided directly to
the E&S plans in lieu of the addition of the existing conditions and grading plan sheets if desired.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
Rev 2 - Addressed
6. [NOTE] Bond estimate cannot be provided until plans are complete. Will provide bond estimate
upon approval.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. 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. [General] Provide design detail for the rip rap lined channel at the outfall of SWM structure G1.
This should include details on the channel lining.
Rev 2 - Addressed
2. [General] Provide stormwater management maintenance easement for biofilter.
Rev 2 - Addressed
3. [General] Provide long term maintenance requirements/schedule for Biofilter, underground storage
unit with storm filters, and permeable pavement.
Rev 2 - Addressed
4. [Sheets 9, 10, and 11] Drainage areas are inconsistent with sub catchment areas presented in
adjacent sheets and in stormwater calculations. For example: the drainage area for total Post
development runoff point of analysis Area `B' on sheet 9 does not equal that presented in design
calculations or other sections of the submittal; the drainage area to BMP #1 does not equate to
drainage areas presented in previous sections; the preserved woods/grass area is stated as being
0.25 acres on sheet 9, but is only included as 0.20 acres in the calculations; Please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
5. [Sheet 11] Dimensions provided in detail inconsistent between figures A11 and B11. Outlet pipe
sizes inconsistent.
Rev 2 - Addressed
6. [Sheet 12] Dimensions for emergency outlet riser inconsistent between figures Al2 and B12. Plan
has a diameter of 45" where the profile view states the diameter is 72".
Rev 2 - Addressed
7. [Sheet 12] Elevations presented in biofilter detail sections appear to be 100' off. Please correct
Rev 2 - Addressed
8. [Sheet 12] Provide details for biofilter forebay design.
Rev 2 - Addressed
9. [Calculations Booklet] On page 9 and 26 of the Area `A' calculations the 4" #57 stone layer for
the permeable pavement is modeled as being 6.33ft thick instead of 4 inches thick as specified in
the details and descriptions. The invert of the outflow pipe is also incorrectly modeled to be
576.00ft rather than at the invert of the #3 stone at 559.00ft per design. This is resulting in an
outflow of 0 CFS from the permeable pavers for both the 2 and I Oyr storms, which is incorrect.
Please re-evaluate.
Rev 2 - Addressed
10. [Calculations Booklet] MS -19 downstream analysis only provided for discharge from stormsewer
system `A'. Please provide for discharge from SWM system `G' as well. This should include flow
over "existing sump that serves as de -facto level spreader".
Rev 2 - Addressed
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
11. [Calculations Booklet] Provide routing for 100yr storm event for the biofilter to confirm overflow
is contained or that controlled overland relief is provided.
Rev 2 - Addressed
12. Provide proof that offsite easements have been granted to the developer for all offsite activities
(easement is needed for drainage through offsite properties (front and rear of property).
Rev 2 — Easement plat to be submitted, deed being formatted. Approval contingent on Deed
and Plat completion/record. Deed book and page should be referenced on final submittal.
Rev 3 - Addressed
Additional Rev 2 Comments
13. Ensure plantings for biofilter can accommodate ponding depths of greater than 1'.
Rev 3 — Addressed.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is Approved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control
plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
[All] Label all proposed and existing stormsewer infrastructure. Show existing stormsewer
infrastructure connecting to the Al stormsewer structure as shown in MS -19 figure in the
calculations booklet.
Rev 2 - Addressed
[All] The silt fence adjacent to Rio Road and construction of the proposed water line appears to
shift position from E&S plan stages A to B, and then again from stages C to D. The silt fence
should lie on the roadside edge of the water line installation to prevent sediment from washing into
Rio Road. Please clarify the position of the silt fence, and if it is to be replaced between phases.
Rev 2 - Addressed
[Sheet 2] The last 70' of diversion dike #1, before entering sediment basin #1, appears to drain
unhill_ nleme cnrrect.
Rev 2 - Addressed
4. [L3,,v;uL /,j 1 iuviuL; gilt fence containing disturbance proposed for connection of new stormsewer
network `A' where tying in to existing infrastructure at stormsewer structure Al. It should be
incorporated where construction is to take place adjacent to existing paved areas.
Rev 2 - Addressed
5. [Sheet 3] Inlet protection should be provided for drop inlets on the existing parking lot where
installation of ACSA sewer `A' is to occur.
Rev 2 - Addressed
6. [Sheet 4] Add safety fence across the entrance lane from Rio Road not being utilized as a
construction entrance to prevent bypassing of the construction entrance.
Rev 2 — Addressed
7. [Sheet 4] Provide dimensions for Outlet protection discharging from structure D1. Detail is
provided, but not dimensioned.
Rev 2 - Addressed
8. [Sheet 4] Proposed stockpile area adjacent to Rio Road should have silt fence containment.
Rev 2 - Addressed
9. [Sheet 4] The segment of stormsewer from structures D6 to D7 seems to be missing. Please clarify
if this is intentional. If to be installed as shown, provide measures to prevent water from entering
these stormsewer structures during this phase of construction.
Rev 2 - Addressed
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
10. [Sheet 5] Include the narrative related to the construction of underground storage facility and
biofilter in the construction sequence.
Rev 2 - Addressed
It. [Sheet 6] Silt f--- -- hould be installed along the LOD related to the construction of stormsewer
rafiz7nrV `C';'
Rev 2 - Addressed
12. [Sncel of tin incorrect LOD acreage is provided to the west of the proposed rip rap lined channel
(stating LOD is 9.39 instead of 10.5 acres), please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
13. [Sheet 6] Provide north arrow and scale bar as part of plan view.
Rev 2 - Addressed
14. [Sheet 6] The Sediment trap #2 design detail (Figure 136) does not match what is provided in the
design calculations or presented in the E&S plan phases. Please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
Bobby Jocz, EIT
Civil Engineer I
(434) 296-5832 ext: 3283
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.Albemarle.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers
VSMP Permit plan review
Oakleigh
WP0201700023
Alan Franklin [alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
George Ray [georgerayjr@gmail.com]
R ev 1 — 3 Mar 2017
Rev 2 — April 24" 2017
xev 1 — 10 April 2017
Rev 2 — May 3 d 2017
Rev 1 — Bobby Jocz
Rev 2 — Bobby Jocz
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
contingent on record of offsite drainage and stormwater management
easements/maintenance agreements. The rationale is given in the comments below. The
application may be resubmitted for approval if all of the items below are satisfactorily addressed.
The VSMP application content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
[General] Add the WPO application number, WP0201700023, to both the cover sheet of the plan
set and the SWPPP booklet prior to final submission.
Rev 2 — Addressed
2. [General] Provide original signatures on PE seal for both the cover sheet of the plan set and
SWPPP booklet prior to final submission; 4 copies of the plans and 2 copies of the SWPPP will be
needed.
Rev 2 - Acknowledged
3. [General] Shoe, "rn"n-'/-F-'-rP ROW limits, easements, and property lines.
4. Rev 2 — See comment B.12 below.
5. Topography shouia ne neia verined by the designer within the past year. Provide date of field
verification.
Rev 2 — Addressed
6. Please include an existing condition and grading plan sheets. Since the County reviews SDP and
WPO plans separately, this aids in review by providing additional information not currently
provided in the WPO plan. This includes the storm drain structure names, descriptions of existing
stormsewer, final site conditions, and other information. This material can be provided directly to
the E&S plans in lieu of the addition of the existing conditions and grading plan sheets if desired.
Rev 2 - Addressed
7. [NOTE] Bond estimate cannot be provided until plans are complete. Will provide bond estimate
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
upon approval.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. 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 contingent on record of offsite drainage and stormwater
management easements/Agreement, and one additional comment provided below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
1. [General] Provide design detail for the rip rap lined channel at the outfall of SWM structure G1.
This should include details on the channel lining.
Rev 2 - Addressed
2. [C.Pnern II PrnvidP -tormwater management maintenance easement for biofilter.
Rev 2 - Addressed
3. [l,cuciaq riuviuc gong term maintenance requirements/schedule for Biofilter, underground storage
unit with storm filters, and permeable pavement.
Rev 2 - Addressed
4. [Sheets 9, 10, and 11] Drainage areas are inconsistent with sub catchment areas presented in
adjacent sheets and in stormwater calculations. For example: the drainage area for total Post
development runoff point of analysis Area `B' on sheet 9 does not equal that presented in design
calculations or other sections of the submittal; the drainage area to BMP #1 does not equate to
drainage areas presented in previous sections; the preserved woods/grass area is stated as being
0.25 acres on sheet 9, but is only included as 0.20 acres in the calculations; Please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
5. [Sheet 11] Dimensions provided in detail inconsistent between figures Al l and B11. Outlet pipe
sizes inconsistent.
Rev 2 - Addressed
6. [Sheet 12] Dimensions for emergency outlet riser inconsistent between figures A 12 and B 12. Plan
view states the riser has a diameter of 45" where the profile view states the diameter is 72".
Rev 2 - Addressed
7. [Sheet 12] Elevations presented in biofilter detail sections appear to be 100' off. Please correct
Rev 2 - Addressed
8. [Sheet 121 Provide details for biofilter forebay design.
Rev 2 - Addressed
9. [Calculations Booklet] On page 9 and 26 of the Area `A' calculations the 4" #57 stone layer for
the permeable pavement is modeled as being 6.33ft thick instead of 4 inches thick as specified in
the details and descriptions. The invert of the outflow pipe is also incorrectly modeled to be
576.00ft rather than at the invert of the #3 stone at 559.00ft per design. This is resulting in an
outflow of 0 CFS from the permeable pavers for both the 2 and l0yr storms, which is incorrect.
Please re-evaluate.
Rev 2 - Addressed
10. [Calculations Booklet] MS -19 downstream analysis only provided for discharge from stormsewer
system W. Please provide for discharge from SWM system `G' as well. This should include flow
over "existing sump that serves as de -facto level spreader".
Rev 2 - Addressed
11. [Calculations Booklet] Provide routing for 100yr storm event for the biofilter to confirm overflow
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
is contained or that controlled overland relief is provided.
Rev 2 - Addressed
12. Provide proof that offsite easements have been granted to the developer for all offsite activities
(easement is needed for drainage through offsite properties (front and rear of property).
Rev 2 — Easement plat to be submitted, deed being formatted. Approval contingent on Deed
and Plat completion/record. Deed book and page should be referenced on final submittal.
Additional Rev 2 Comments
13. Ensure plantings for biofilter can accommodate ponding depths of greater than 1'.
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, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control
plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
1. [All] Label all proposed and existing stormsewer infrastructure. Show existing stormsewer
infrastructure connecting to the Al stormsewer structure as shown in MS -19 figure in the
calculations booklet.
Rev 2 - Addressed
2. [All] The silt fence adjacent to Rio Road and construction of the proposed water line appears to
shift position from E&S plan stages A to B, and then again from stages C to D. The silt fence
should lie on the roadside edge of the water line installation to prevent sediment from washing into
Rio Road. Please clarify the position of the silt fence, and if it is to be replaced between phases.
Rev 2 - Addressed
3. [Sheet 2] The last 70' of diversion dike #1, before entering sediment basin #1, appears to drain
uphill, please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
4. [Sheet 2] Provide silt fence containing disturbance proposed for connection of new stormsewer
network `A' where tying in to existing infrastructure at stormsewer structure Al. It should be
incorporated where construction is to take place adjacent to existing paved areas.
Rev 2 - Addressed
5. [Sheet 3] Inlet protection should be provided for drop inlets on the existing parking lot where
installation of ACSA sewer `A' is to occur.
Rev 2 - Addressed
6. [Sheet 4] Add safety fence across the entrance lane from Rio Road not being utilized as a
construction entrance to prevent bypassing of the construction entrance.
Rev 2 — Addressed
7. [Sheet 4] Provide dimensions for Outlet protection discharging from structure D1. Detail is
provided, but not dimensioned.
Rev 2 - Addressed
8. [Sheet 4] Proposed stockpile area adjacent to Rio Road should have silt fence containment.
Rev 2 - Addressed
9. [Sheet 4] The segment of stormsewer from structures D6 to D7 seems to be missing. Please clarify
if this is intentional. If to be installed as shown, provide measures to prevent water from entering
these stormsewer structures during this phase of construction.
Rev 2 - Addressed
10. [Sheet 5] Include the narrative related to the construction of underground storage facility and
biofilter in the construction sequence.
Rev 2 - Addressed
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
11. [Sheet 6] Silt fence should be installed along the LOD related to the construction of stormsewer
network `G'.
Rev 2 - Addressed
12. [Sheet 6] An incorrect LOD acreage is provided to the west of the proposed rip rap lined channel
(stnt;na r rM ;c Q 29 instead of 10.5 acres), please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
13. '] rroviuc north arrow and scale bar as part of plan view.
Rev 2 - Addressed
14. [Sheet 6] The Sediment trap #2 design detail (Figure B6) does not match what is provided in the
design calculations or presented in the E&S plan phases. Please correct.
Rev 2 - Addressed
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed.
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.
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.
Bobby Jocz, EIT
Civil Engineer I
(434) 296-5832 ext: 3283
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.Albemarle.org
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering,Site Planning,and Land Development Consulting
24 April 2017
Mr. Bobby Jocz, EIT
Civil Engineer I
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902
RE:WPO-2017-00023-Oakleigh
Dear Bobby,
This letter is to accompany the WPO Plan revisions to serve as written response to your comments
provided in your April 10, 2017 letter.
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. Responses are in bold.
1.[General]Add the WPO application number, WP0201700023,to both the cover sheet of the plan
set and the SWPPP booklet prior to final submission.
Response:WPO number added.
2.[General] Provide original signatures on PE seal for both the cover sheet of the plan set and SWPPP
booklet prior to final submission;4 copies of the plans and 2 copies of the SWPPP will be needed.
Response:2 copies of the revised plan and SWPPP booklet provided.Additional plan copies to be
provided upon approval.
3.[General]Show proposed/future ROW limits, easements, and property lines.
Response: I believe this comment has been addressed, but not sure.
4.Topography should be field verified by the designer within the past year. Provide date of field
verification.
Response: Note added to Cover Sheet.
5.Please include an existing condition and grading plan sheets.Since the County reviews SDP and
WPO plans separately,this aids in review by providing additional information not currently provided
in the WPO plan.This includes the storm drain structure names, descriptions of existing storm
sewer,final site conditions,and other information.This material can be provided directly to the E&S
plans in lieu of the addition of the existing conditions and grading plan sheets if desired.
Response: Requested sheets from the Site Plan have been added to the plan set.
6.[NOTE] Bond estimate cannot be provided until plans are complete.Will provide bond estimate
upon approval.
Response: No action required.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan(PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Adequately addressed.
Response: No action required.
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434)531-5544
Crozet,Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering,Site Planning,and Land Development Consulting
C.Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a SWMP.This
plan is denied,and the reasons are provided in the comments below.The stormwater management plan
content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
1. [General] Provide design detail for the rip rap lined channel at the outfall of SWM structure G1.
This should include details on the channelliry'ng.
Response: Detail added to Sheet 15. ✓
2. [General] Provide stormwater management maintenance easement for biofilter.
Response: Required easements shown and labeled on Sheet 12 and 13 and on the Site Plans. V
3. [General] Provide long term maintenance requirements/schedule for Biofilter, underground
storage unit with storm filters,and permeable pavement./
Response: Requested information added to Sheet 15. ✓
4. [Sheets 9, 10,and 11] Drainage areas are inconsistent with sub catchment areas presented in
adjacent sheets and in stormwater calculations. For example:the drainage area for total Post
development runoff point of analysis Area 'B' on sheet 9 does not equal that presented in design
calculations or other sections of the submittal;the drainage area to BMP#1 does not equate to
drainage areas presented in previous sections;the preserved woods/grass area is stated as being
0.25 acres on sheet 9, but is only included as 0.20 acres in the calculations; Please correct.
Response:All areas cross referenced with the stormwater management model have been updated
for consistency.
5. [Sheet 11] Dimensions provided in detail inconsistent between figures All and B11. Outlet pipe
sizes inconsistent.
Response: Pipe dimension inconsistencies revised and corrected.
6. [Sheet 12] Dimensions for emergency outlet riser inconsistent between figures Al2 and B12.
Plan view states the riser has a diameter of 45" wheisybe profile view states the diameter is 72".
Response: Note corrected to 72"in both locations.
7. [Sheet 12] Elevations presented in biofilter detail section appear to be 100' off. Please correct
Response: Plan and detail elevations have been corrected.V
8. [Sheet 12] Provide details for biofilter forebay design.
Response:Typical forebay detail has been added to Sheet 15./
9. [Calculations Booklet] On page 9 and 26 of the Area 'A' calculations the 4"#57 stone layer for
the permeable pavement is modeled as being 6.33ft thick instead of 4 inches thick as specified in
the details and descriptions.The invert of the outflow pipe is also incorrectly modeled to be 576.00ft
rather than at invert of the#3 stone at 559.00ft per design.This is resulting in an outflow of 0
CFS from th permeable pavers for both the 2 and 10yr storms, which is incorrect. Please re-
evaluate.
Response:Thickness of#57 stone layer corrected to 0.33 ft in the model. V
10. [Calculations Booklet] MS-19 downstream analysis only provided for discharge from storm sewer
system 'A'. Please provide for discharge from SWM system 'G'as well.This should include flow over
"existing sump that serves as de-facto level spreader". �
Response: MS-19 analysis for storm system 'G' has been added to the calculations booklet.
11. [Calculations Booklet] Provide routing for 100yr store 4vent for the biofilter to confirm overflow is
contained or that controlled overland relief is provided. ✓
Response:The 100-year routing for the bio-filter has been added to the calculations bookFetyj
12. Provide proof that offsite easements have been granted to the developer for all offsite activities
(easement is needed for drainage through offsite properties(front and rear of property .
Response:Work in progress. Easement plat for rear of property has been emailed.
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434)531-5544
Crozet,Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering,Site Planning,and Land Development Consulting
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.This plan
is denied,and the reasons are provided in the comments below.The erosion control plan content
requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
1. [All] Label all proposed and existing storm sewer infrastructure.Show existing storm sewer
infrastructure connecting to the Al storm sewer structure as shown in MS-19 figure in the
calculations booklet.
Response: Labeling and line work revised to address this comment. u/
2. [All] The silt fence adjacent to Rio Road and construction of the proposed water line appears to
shift position from E&S plan stages A to B,and then again from stages C to D.The silt fence should lie
on the roadside edge of the water line installation to prevent sediment from washing into Rio Road.
Please clarify the position of the silt fence,and if it is to be replaced between phases.
Response:Silt fence corrected to be consistent between phases.
3. [Sheet 2]The last 70' of diversion dike#1, before entering sediment basin #1,appears to drain
uphill, please correct.
Response: Diversion dike in question corrected.✓
4. [Sheet 2] Provide silt fence containing disturbance proposed for connection of new storm sewer
network 'A' where tying in to existing infrastructure at storm sewer structure Al. It should be
incorporated where construction is to take place adjacent to existing paved areas.
Response:Silt fence added in area of concern.
5. [Sheet 3] Inlet protection should be provided for drop inlets on the existing parking lot where
installation of ACSA sewer'A' is to occur.
Response: Inlet protection added to inlets in question.
6. [Sheet 4]Add safety fence across the entrance lane from Rio Road not being utilized as a
construction entrance to prevent bypassing of the construction entrance.
Response:Safety fence added as requested.11 of /.4e I
7. [Sheet 4] Provide dimensions for Outlet protection discharging from structure Dl. Detail is
provided, but not dimensioned.
Response:Outlet protection dimension in plan and detail view.
8. [Sheet 4] Proposed stockpile area cent to Rio Road should have silt fence containment.
Response: Errant label removed.
9. [Sheet 4]The segment of storm sewer from structures D6 to D7 seems to be missing. Please
clarify if this is intentional. If to be installed as shown, provide measures to prevent water from
entering these storm sewer structures during this phase of con str ion.
Response: Missing section of storm sewer added to the plan.
10. [Sheet 5] Include the narrative related the construction of underground storage facility and
biofilter in the construction sequence.
Response:Construction sequence revised as suggested.
11. [Sheet 6]Silt fence, f ould be installed along the LOD related to the construction of storm sewer
network 'G'. �/
Response:Silt fence added to location requested.
12. [Sheet 6]An incorrect LOD acreage is provided to the west of the proposed rip rap lined channel
(stating LOD is 9.39 instead of 10.5 acres), please corr
Response: LOD limits revised and labels corrected. ,
13. [Sheet 6] Provide north arrow and scale bar as part of plan view.
Response: North arrow and scale bar added. -
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434)531-5544
Crozet,Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
Civil Engineering,Site Planning,and Land Development Consulting
14. [Sheet 6]The Sediment trap#2 design detail (Figure 66)does not match what is provided in the
design calculations or presented in the E&S plan ph ses. Please correct.
Response: Design detail and figure corrected.
I hope that you find this information useful in your consideration for approval. Please find the attached
two copies of plans,two copies of the SWPPP booklet,and two copies of stormwater management
calculations. Please feel free to call (434)531-5544 with any questions or request for additional
information.
Sincerely,
aer,_
Alan G. Franklin, PE
427 Cranberry Lane PHONE (434)531-5544
Crozet,Virginia 22932 E-MAIL alan@alanfranklinpe.com
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
Reviewers:
VSMP Permit plan review
Oakleigh
WP0201700023
Alan Franklin [alan@alanfranklinpe.com]
George Ray [georgerayjr@gmail.com]
Rev 1 — 3 Mar 2017
Rev 1 — 10 April 2017
Rev 1 — Bobby Jocz
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to
act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The
rationale is given in the comments below. The application may be resubmitted for approval if all
of the items below are satisfactorily addressed. The VSMP application content requirements can
be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESCP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. [General] Add the WPO application number, WP0201700023, to both the cover sheet of the plan
set and the SWPPP booklet prior to final submission.
2. [General] Provide original signatures on PE seal for both the cover sheet of the plan set and
SWPPP booklet prior to final submission; 4 copies of the plans and 2 copies of the SWPPP will be
needed.
3. [General] Show proposed/future ROW limits, easements, and property lines.
4. Topography should be field verified by the designer within the past year. Provide date of field
verification.
5. Please include an existing condition and grading plan sheets. Since the County reviews SDP and
WPO plans separately, this aids in review by providing additional information not currently
provided in the WPO plan. This includes the storm drain structure names, descriptions of existing
stormsewer, final site conditions, and other information. This material can be provided directly to
the E&S plans in lieu of the addition of the existing conditions and grading plan sheets if desired.
6. [NOTE] Bond estimate cannot be provided until plans are complete. Will provide bond estimate
upon approval.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
1. Adequately addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is denied, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
1. [General] Provide design detail for the rip rap lined channel at the outfall of SWM structure G1.
This should include details on the channel lining.
2. [General] Provide stormwater management maintenance easement for biofilter.
3. [General] Provide long term maintenance requirements/schedule for Biofilter, underground storage
unit with storm filters, and permeable pavement.
4. [Sheets 9, 10, and 11] Drainage areas are inconsistent with sub catchment areas presented in
adjacent sheets and in stormwater calculations. For example: the drainage area for total Post
development runoff point of analysis Area `B' on sheet 9 does not equal that presented in design
calculations or other sections of the submittal; the drainage area to BMP #1 does not equate to
drainage areas presented in previous sections; the preserved woods/grass area is stated as being
0.25 acres on sheet 9, but is only included as 0.20 acres in the calculations; Please correct.
5. [Sheet 11] Dimensions provided in detail inconsistent between figures A11 and B11. Outlet pipe
sizes inconsistent.
6. [Sheet 12] Dimensions for emergency outlet riser inconsistent between figures Al2 and B12. Plan
view states the riser has a diameter of 45" where the profile view states the diameter is 72".
7. [Sheet 12] Elevations presented in biofilter detail sections appear to be 100' off. Please correct
8. [Sheet 12] Provide details for biofilter forebay design.
9. [Calculations Booklet] On page 9 and 26 of the Area `A' calculations the 4" #57 stone layer for
the permeable pavement is modeled as being 6.33ft thick instead of 4 inches thick as specified in
the details and descriptions. The invert of the outflow pipe is also incorrectly modeled to be
576.00ft rather than at the invert of the #3 stone at 559.00ft per design. This is resulting in an
outflow of 0 CFS from the permeable pavers for both the 2 and l0yr storms, which is incorrect.
Please re-evaluate.
10. [Calculations Booklet] MS -19 downstream analysis only provided for discharge from stormsewer
system W. Please provide for discharge from SWM system `G' as well. This should include flow
over "existing sump that serves as de -facto level spreader".
11. [Calculations Booklet] Provide routing for 100yr storm event for the biofilter to confirm overflow
is contained or that controlled overland relief is provided.
12. Provide proof that offsite easements have been granted to the developer for all offsite activities
(easement is needed for drainage through offsite properties (front and rear of property).
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.
This plan is denied, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The erosion control plan
content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
1. [All] Label all proposed and existing stormsewer infrastructure. Show existing stormsewer
infrastructure connecting to the Al stormsewer structure as shown in MS -19 figure in the
calculations booklet.
2. [All] The silt fence adjacent to Rio Road and construction of the proposed water line appears to
shift position from E&S plan stages A to B, and then again from stages C to D. The silt fence
should lie on the roadside edge of the water line installation to prevent sediment from washing into
Rio Road. Please clarify the position of the silt fence, and if it is to be replaced between phases.
3. [Sheet 2] The last 70' of diversion dike #1, before entering sediment basin #1, appears to drain
uphill, please correct.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
4. [Sheet 2] Provide silt fence containing disturbance proposed for connection of new stormsewer
network `A' where tying in to existing infrastructure at stormsewer structure Al. It should be
incorporated where construction is to take place adjacent to existing paved areas.
5. [Sheet 3] Inlet protection should be provided for drop inlets on the existing parking lot where
installation of ACSA sewer `A' is to occur.
6. [Sheet 4] Add safety fence across the entrance lane from Rio Road not being utilized as a
construction entrance to prevent bypassing of the construction entrance.
7. [Sheet 4] Provide dimensions for Outlet protection discharging from structure D 1. Detail is
provided, but not dimensioned.
8. [Sheet 4] Proposed stockpile area adjacent to Rio Road should have silt fence containment.
9. [Sheet 4] The segment of stormsewer from structures D6 to D7 seems to be missing. Please clarify
if this is intentional. If to be installed as shown, provide measures to prevent water from entering
these stormsewer structures during this phase of construction.
10. [Sheet 5] Include the narrative related to the construction of underground storage facility and
biofilter in the construction sequence.
11. [Sheet 6] Silt fence should be installed along the LOD related to the construction of stormsewer
network `G'.
12. [Sheet 6] An incorrect LOD acreage is provided to the west of the proposed rip rap lined channel
(stating LOD is 9.39 instead of 10.5 acres), please correct.
13. [Sheet 6] Provide north arrow and scale bar as part of plan view.
14. [Sheet 6] The Sediment trap #2 design detail (Figure B6) does not match what is provided in the
design calculations or presented in the E&S plan phases. Please correct.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed.
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.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
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.
Bobby Jocz, EIT
Civil Engineer I
(434) 296-5832 ext: 3283
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
www.Albemarle.org