HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201700053 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2017-10-17COUNTY 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: Albemarle County Sidewalks
Project file number: WP0201700053
Plan preparer:
John Hash, Timmons Group Uohn.hash@timmons.com]
Owner or rep.:
Jack Kelsey, Albemarle County [Jkelsey@albemarle.org]
Plan received date:
Rev 1 — 14' June 2017
Rev 2 — 2nd Sept. 2017
Date of comments:
Rev 1 — 25t' July 2017
Rev 2 —17' Oct. 2017
Reviewers: 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 Approvable
conditional on satisfaction of minor additional comments stated below and purchase of
nutrient credits.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
a) Rio Road Sections 1 & 2
a. No comments
b) Rockfish Gap Turnpike
a. [Calculations Packet] Project narrative missing.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
c) Avon Street Extended
a. No comments
d) General
a. Provide date and source of topographic data. Elevations must be field verified within the
past year.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
b. Provide proposed contour elevations.
Rev 2 — VDOT revenue sharing projects dictated in manner which does not
necessitate this type of detail. Comment rescinded.
c. Ensure all symbols/line work are included in key, or ensure all symbols/line work are
explicitly labeled.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
d. Provide engineering details for SWM structures. This should include DI -structures, curb
and gutter structures, ramps, etc.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
e. Show proposed elevations on road section profile views, or indicate that the elevations are
unchanged.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
1. No objection
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is approvable upon satisfaction of additional Rev 2 comment below.
a) Rio Road Sections 1 & 2
a. [LD 204] DI type and throat length are inconsistent between calculations packet and plans.
Please correct.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
b. [LD 229] Pipe invert elevations are inconsistent between calculations packet and plan for
Rio Road Section 1. Lower end invert for 3-1 to 3-2 is a foot off causing subsequent
section-, tc) -lac) rc-nresent incorrect values. Please correct.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
c. Show HGL elevations on pipe profiles.
Rev 2 — As noted, HGL elevations presented in calculations packet are sufficient.
Comment rescinded.
b) Rockfish Gap Turnpike
a. Typical section for STA 10+00 to 14+15 identifies proposed path surface material as
"Asphalt Concrete" please clarify.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
b. Specify ramp type at the north end of the asphalt path adjacent to Cory Farm Road.
Rev 2 — Addressed. Connection is asphalt to asphalt with detectable warning strip.
c. Provide additional detail regarding transition between CG and conveyance channel at STA
14+15.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
d. [LD 204 and LD 229] Drainage areas presented for structure 5A-2 in DA map (sheet
2I(3)) and in calculations booklet are inconsistent. Map specifies drainage area of 0.13
acres, where calculations booklet specifies DA as 0.03 acres. Please correct.
Rev 2 — Partially Addressed. See below:
e. [Sheet 2I(3)] DA and analysis for inlet 5-A3 not presented. Please evaluate.
Rev 2 — Acknowledged.
f. [Sheet 7A] Show pipe details for pipe section between structures 5A-1 to 5A-2 on SWM
profile.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
c) Avon Street Extended
a. [LD 204] Provide structure number and type in stormwater inlet computations table.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
b. [Sheet 7B & 7C] Manhole access must be provided at a minimum of every 300 feet for
pipes 12-48" in diameter. In addition, pipes should maintain a minimum of 0.5% slope.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
d) General
a. The 0.40, 0.30, and 0.95 lbs of nutrient credits for the Rio road, Rockfish Gap, and Avon
Extended sidewalk projects will need to be purchased prior to VSMP approval.
Rev 2 — Acknowledged.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
Additional Rev 2 Comments
1. For structure 5A-2 the DA is corrected, but now the C value in the LD-204 table is
inconsistent with what is presented on sheet 2I(3).
2. DA and C values are inconsistent between calculations packet and plan sheet [Sheet 2I(5)]
for structure 6D-2. Please correct.
3. No DA or C value is presented for structure 6D-3 on the plan sheet [Sheet 2I(5)].
4. No data is presented in the Calc packet LD 204 table for structure EX 2-6E.
5. Label is missing for structure EX 2-6E on sheet 2I(5).
6. Structure ID number inconsistent for structure EX 1-6E between label and DA callout.
Label numbers structure as EX 6-E1. Please correct
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 approvable upon satisfaction of additional Rev 2 comment below. The erosion
control plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402.
a) Rio Road Sections 1 & 2
a. Ensure all construction activities are included in LOD. It appears some areas within
roadway, specifically installation of new stormsewer structures, are not included as part of
LOD.
Rev 2 — Addressed.
b. Ensure silt fencing is placed 5-7 feet from the tow of slope per ESC Handbook Spec 3.05.
It appears fencing is indicated to be placed overtop of areas where site grading is to occur.
Please correct or clarify.
Rev 2 — Due to nature of project, exemption granted for silt fence -slope separation
distance.
b) Rockfish Gap Turnpike
a. Provide silt fence behind proposed grading from STA 18+50 to the beginning of the
drainage channel.
Rev 2 — Area of concern appears to drain to existing SWM facility. There is no need
for silt fence in this area. Comment rescinded.
c) Avon Street Extended
a. Generally Acceptable, no comment.
Additional Rev 2 Comments
b. LOD should encompass storm structures 5 to 5-2 as defined on sheet 5 indicated to
be included in temporary construction Easement.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
For final approval please provide 4 signed copies of the plans and 2 copies of the calculations
booklet 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;
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