Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201500066 Correspondence WPO VSMP 2017-12-01 • John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:56 AM To: John Anderson Subject: Block 31-A Exhibit Attached Exhibit d. 18 Dec 2015 titled Old Trail block 31-A,Phase 3 Erosion Control accompanies Approved WPO201500066,titled Old Trail Village block 15 and Ph. II,block 12,Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan WPO201400047. Note: WPO201500066 replaces WPO201400047. Please also ref. email correspondence between County and RGA on topic of block 31 Exhibit: 12/3/2015 6:15 PM; Dec 20,2015,at 10:35 AM(both,JA to RGA). John E.Anderson,PE ( Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 John Anderson From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:48 PM To: John Anderson Subject: RE:WPO2015-00066, Old Trail Village, block 15 Amendment -VSMP John, A very thoughtful write-up, and hopefully a reminder for them to get back on the issue. Just to let you know, I am trying to force the issue a bit by asking that the master plan become part of the rezoning that is currently under review. I will copy comments to you. So far, there is a noted absence of this issue in the new rezoning documents (you will recall the ones still bearing Timmons name). From:John Anderson Sent:Saturday, September 19, 2015 9:10 AM To: Bill Ledbetter<BLedbetter@roudabush.com>; Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Cc:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org>; Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org> Subject:WP02015-00066, Old Trail Village, block 15 Amendment-VSMP Bill,Dave, (Johnathan,please see bold,below) Earlier this year,when I felt we were making progress on the Master Plan in June only to be surprised in July with novel approach to applicable technical criteria(resolved in August), I was struck by Old Trail's time/resource commitment to seeking a particular outcome. I ask for that now in relation to stormwater management design that must be thoughtful, compliant,and safe well into the future for residents,the public,public/private streets,environment, streams/buffers, HOA-maintained SWM facilities, and the community broadly. This past year,experience of working on Old Trail projects has left a mixed impression: near-constant rush to approve, yet months-long delay relating to Master Plan. I value working relationships with designers at RGA, Stantec,and OTV, yet my purpose is to identify requirements, compare design with standards, identify discrepancies,remedy my own mistakes, and approve design that meets standards. I hope to preserve relationships. If unable to convince that my role is necessary and not excessive, I hope at least to preserve relationships. I say this because it appears to me that a possible reaction to this note(or review comments when available)may be: "What are we supposed to do?" I do not have a ready answer. We have not reached agreement on a Master Plan, and cannot fall back on a Master Plan if SWM design for blocks 11, 14, 12 and 15 must rely on control in another area of Old Trail Village. The sediment basin now serving block 12,phase 1 has been in place for years. Sediment basins are not designed to be permanent structures. This basin's original design we now understand is insufficient to meet design criteria for geometry, volume, or construction of a permanent SWM facility. The riser and barrel are proposed to be replaced,a circumstance VSMH warns against(Spec. 3.06). Replacing barrel/riser requires opening embankment to depth of floor of basin,risking embankment integrity and at once removing runoff control during conversion to permanent SWM facility. Questions: What will happen to block 11, 14, 12, 15 post-developed runoff during conversion to permanent SWM facility? Will equipment have adequate access? Has an Earthen Embankment to retain permanent pool been properly considered? 1 err+ *4140 Is it possible to construct embankment(or modify existing sediment basin)to meet requirements of DEQ BMP Clearinghouse Appendix A, Earthen Embankments? What are the obstacles to conversion, or runoff control during conversion,or runoff control options during conversion? Design proposes 9VAC25-870-96,Table 1,Retention basin III (4 x WQV with aquatic bench)to control storm runoff from blocks 11, 14, 12, 15. Permanent pool depth>9 ft is proposed. Qio(short-duration) depth will approach 15 ft. The facility is in very close proximity to residential development. During special exception(to zoning)request to allow SWM facility replacement,a board member expressed concern with design, reflecting understanding that OTV homeowners are skeptical if not opposed to permanent pool facilities. This permanent pool facility is proposed to replace an approved bioretention design without permanent pool. Proposal includes grading to the very edge of Rowcross, close to Lot 23 (in fact,Final Plat New SWM Easement is shown crossing this Lot). Design proposes an emergency spillway that sweeps toward Old Trail Drive,the development's primary means of access. Riser/barrel structure are slated to be replaced. Final Plat, Road Plan, Site Plan, and VSMP plans are and were submitted with timing sequence that now proves problematic(see private/public street,below). The retention basin earthen embankment will be reviewed in detail. All applicable requirements in DEQ BMP Clearinghouse Appendix A,Earthen Embankment, should be considered,including: subsoil analysis/permeability tests; max. slopes;pool depth; materials; density/compaction(tests during construction required); cut-off trench; other. Please reference DEQ Appendix A Earthen Embankment, as review will reference it often. VDOT must review VSMP. County is sensitive to VDOT comments. VDOT reviews VSMP Applications to assess potential impact to VDOT facilities,or public RW. This design has potential to impact Rowcross Street(private RW), and Old Trail Drive(public). Although Rowcross private right-of-way was reviewed without objection by Engineering, SDP2015-00007,Old Trail Village Block 12 Phase 2—Final Site Plan is not approved. If grades shown with this WPO require revision to road plan,and they appear to, or if there is contention concerning general welfare or safety,then this may affect Final Site Plan Approval. Grading shown with WP02015-00066 appears inconsistent with approved road plan grades. This is consequence of road plan coming in prior to and without a VSMP/WPO. Please accept and consider any VDOT/Engineering WPO comments relating to SWM facility design relating to safety or general welfare. This note suggests we avoid dispute centering on Rowcross St.private right-of-way. It may or may not be too late for Albemarle County to revisit designation of Rowcross Street as a private street(Private Street Authorization request submitted?), or to require Rowcross be public to intersection with Alley A. I would not write if I were not hopeful. County ordinance and state law insist on design that is safe,compliant, and effective. If retention basin III design cannot meet VSMH Spec. 3.06 design criteria—if, for example, size must be reduced—then pollutant loading reduction required may be met via on-site(this BMP; or overall demonstration of development-wide compliance via Master Plan [not yet complete])and off-site(Lickinghole Basin)credit. Terms of off- site credit are outlined in 21-Nov 2014 email guidance. 21-Nov 2014 guidance may require clarification, or discussion. From an Engineering perspective,there is no higher priority than safety and general welfare, including long-term, low- maintenance operation of a basin with pool>9 ft. The basin must be designed and built consistent with VSMH, 1999, Spec. 3.06. The earthen embankment must be designed and built consistent with DEQ BMP Clearinghouse Appendix A, Earthen Embankment. Please reference details in Spec. 3.06 and Appendix A, as comments are certain to reference these design documents. These statements are not review comments,but are intended to be helpful. I understand pressure to develop quickly, have in the past and will likely continue to adjust review schedule to support development needs. Engineering review, however,principally serves compliance, and this design is problematic. It represents revision to approved bioretention basin design(no permanent pool); it proposes depths deeper than recommended(see Spec. 3.06, 2'-6'). Proposed design is the predicable consequence of limiting space to perimeter-only permanent SWM facilities. Lots are maximized with this design. Permanent pool depth is excessive. Design intrudes on stream buffers. The burden of the question"what are we to do?" lies with developer and designer,not Albemarle County. 2 "ow vie Design elements are critical. I am frustrated. It has come to this, and this is problematic. Approval depends on design, routing summaries,narrative, and sequence that ensure compliance. RGA and Old Trail Village are welcome to request meetings, though we ask to avoid expectation for immediate meetings. I explained Thu morning when I visited RGA office to discuss block 12,phase 2 Final Plat that I felt it may be two weeks before I comment on this WPO—a fair estimate. I spent time yesterday noting items of concern or importance. It would be misleading to promise quick approval of a proposal to replace the currently approved bio- retention basin with a 9VAC25-870-96 Table 1 retention basin III(4 x WQV with aquatic bench). Also,revised WPO plans cannot in this instance be reviewed as .PDFs, given level of detail and likely extent of revisions. I will speed review as much as possible, and truly, hope this note is helpful. Thank you John E.Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 3 John Anderson From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 8:23 AM To: Bill Ledbetter Cc: Muckley, Glenn;John Anderson; Dave Brockman; Chris Mulligan; Mark Graham Subject: RE: OLD TRAIL POND Bill, Enough to maintain laminar flow over the weir, provide an adequate non-erosive foundation and rear spill area, and maintain the design flow parameters. Glenn From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 03, 2015 7:57 AM To:Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org> Cc: Muckley,Glenn<glenn.muckley@stantec.com>;John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Dave Brockman <dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Chris Mulligan<CMulligan@roudabush.com>; Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org> Subject:OLD TRAIL POND Glenn, Once follow up question on the spillway design for the pond we discussed yesterday. Do you envision the concrete control device that defines the spillway elevation being anything more than 4-6" in width with the rip-rap placed behind and lower that the lip elevation? I want to be certain you were not wanting a concrete spillway section across the width of the dam before it became rip-rap. Please advise and thanks again for taking the time to meet with us yesterday. Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax 1 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 4:50 PM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Cc: Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500071 Old Trail Block 12 Phase B - Final. Attachments: Attachment_A_deed_of_dedication_of_easement_for_access_to_private_swm_fa....doc Bill, Attached was shared with reviewers Monday—it signals a change, and represents acceptable language. We need this for OTV. Planners and engineers are to operate using this document, now/in the future. The Glenmore situation is different. We don't have template language for `Forest/open space' for use with VRRM .xls for WQ compliance. I wish we did. Make sense? Thanks, From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday,October 30, 2015 4:42 PM To:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org>; David Jordan<DJordan@roudabush.com> Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500071 Old Trail Block 12 Phase B- Final. JT I think the easement language we have been working on is applicable to Glenmore and not Old Trail. John, if this is not correct please let me know. Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: Johnathan Newberry [mailto:jnewberry@albemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 4:35 PM To: David Jordan Cc: Bill Ledbetter; John Anderson Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500071 Old Trail Block 12 Phase B - Final. Hi David, I have reviewed the resubmittal for SUB201500071 and have no objection. I understand there have been some conversations between John/Glenn and Bill regarding the County Attorney's expectations for certain types of easements that will be discussed at a meeting on Monday. I'll coordinate the County's signature on the plat as soon as it's ready to go. Of course, apologies for the delay. Thanks, J.T. From: David Jordan [mailto:DJordan@roudabush.com] Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:16 PM To:Johnathan Newberry<jnewberry@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Planning Application Review for SUB201500071 Old Trail Block 12 Phase B- Final. JT, Have you been able to look at Old Trail Block 12-B Plat yet while John has been reviewing it? As we discussed, the recordation of Block 12-B is critical. David Jordan Roudabush Gale &Associates, Inc. From: David Jordan Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: 'John Anderson'; Bill Ledbetter Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Dave Brockman; Chris Mulligan Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for SUB201500071 Old Trail Block 12 Phase B - Final. John, It was a pleasure to meet with you today and it certainly was no problem reviewing the plat with you. I have addressed the comments you recently provided and have supplied you with my responses below. Also, I have attached a pdf of the plat with revision clouds for your use. Final Plat(SUB201500071) Sheet 4 of 6 14 Sheet 4/5: Revise easement/EL8 since waterline blow-off assembly will not work at this location. (Rev. 1)Partially Addressed. Compare block 12,phase 2/3 road plan ACSA easement, at this location, with sheet 4, ACSA Easement Plat at this location—there is a mismatch. Confirm Plat easement is accurate, and please revise RP to reflect accurate easement boundaries. (RP does not include segment SL11.) Print two copies of any affected RP sheets/submit. County will replace these sheets in block 12, phase 2/3 road plan. • ACSA Easement was reviewed. Original site plan proposed a 90° bend for the waterline. The waterline was revised to have two 45° bends in accordance with ACSA comments. The line labeled with the SL11 tag reflects the two bends previously referenced. Sheet 6 of 6 2 17 Check Drainage Easements at S end Alley A —Revise as necessary,per road plan comments (Alley to match Approved initial site plan). (Rev. 1)As follow-up, David Jordan, RGA, has informed County that Plat requires revision to match VSMP/WP02015-00066 design. Please ensure Drainage Easements match WP02015-00066 design. • Easements have been revised and updated to match the WPO and plat. New 1. Sheet 2: Legend(WAM 5) appears inconsistent with WAM VAR label use in body of plat Revise; recommend eliminate one label or the other. • WAM 5 has been revised to be WAM VAR in the legend. 2. Sheets 4/6: New SWM Easement curve DC2 appears to intersect dwelling, Lot 24. Separate Easement and dwelling. • The new SWM Easement has been revised so that it runs with the proposed lot line of future Lot 24. 3. Sheet 6.• Label stream, stream buffer, and 100 yr floodplain. • The stream buffer and floodplains have been labeled. The stream is not visible on the plat. 4. Sheet 5: Private Alley A 'east boundary is confusing: 54.59'v. 57.01 '—which dimension is accurate? Recommend review/edit this section of plat. • The 54.59' dimension shown on sheet 5 is part of the annotation of the ACSA easement. I have searched for a 57.01' dimension on the plat. The only dimensions that are close to this dimension are 57.07' (chord) and 57.08' (arc length) listed with C17 in the curve table. If so, the 57' dimension is part of the annotation to the Alley in the subdivision plat. 5. All sheets: Road Plan identifies Existing Lots 1 -7(block 12,phase A). Plat relabels as Lots 13- 19. This is confusing. Revert to Lot 1-7 labels used with prior(or prior-approved) plans/plats. Additional Note:A complete reorganization of sheet 1 line-curve tables between the initial and revised Plat submission is very confusing. All line-curve labels have changed. In the future, we ask that labels carry through to the maximum extent,from initial to final. • With future plat submissions, I will attempt to maintain consistency with the line and curve tables. Please note that in certain cases with revisions to the plat, being consistent can be difficult and often times it can be more expedient and efficient to relabel from the beginning. David Jordan Roudabush Gale &Associates, Inc. From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:05 PM To: David Jordan; Bill Ledbetter Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Dave Brockman Subject: Planning Application Review for SUB201500071 Old Trail Block 12 Phase B - Final. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number=SUB201500071 Reviewer =John Anderson Review Status = Requested Changes Completed Date =09/17/2015 Thanks for your patience. Attached also available in CV. Bill, 3 N100 *tool I've reconsidered. I feel it's best if you print any changes to Road Plan sheets(blk. 12, phase 2/3)that result from Plat revisions/any mismatch. I'll be glad to switch them out. Please seal/sign/date each RP sheet(4 copies). Thank you,both. 4 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:56 PM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Subject: RE: OT updated VSMP registration statement I appreciate this—thanks I don't know if you're interested in estimating facility conversion volumes for SWM bond using CAD-my estimate (cut/fill)will be inexact. We want to include Vol.to replace barrel/riser as well—thanks From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 2:48 PM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Cc: Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Subject:OT updated VSMP registration statement John Just to keep things moving along, I am sending you a scan of the revised registration statement as requested. I will get you the original on Monday. Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@albemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:52 AM To: David Brockman Cc: Bill Ledbetter; Mark Graham; Glenn Brooks; Muckley, Glenn; Johnathan Newberry Subject: FW: Message from KM_364e Dave, I spoke with Mark Graham. 1 *ONO 441.0 Attached,please find County Engineer comments—Glenn is off today. Glenn was away by the time we received your 4:19 pm email yesterday. We would be glad to meet to discuss County Engineer's block 12/15 VSMP comments, Monday, 2-Nov, 12pm. We accept kind offer of lunch. Glenn has other commitments Monday,beginning 1pm, lasting till end of day. Mark Graham plans to attend. We appreciate your patience. Please note: Attached are labeled DRAFT. These are almost certainly the form/substance of final review comments. Revised plans(response to comments)will likely be reviewed by Glenn. This is what we plan to discuss on Monday. Please note: Attached includes explicit guidance that may ease approval. I feel that with these comments we're close to approval for blocks 11, 14, 12 and 15, independent of SW Master Plan. Thanks,Dave -below/Process Glenn Muckley, Are you free(or would you like)to meet immediately after 12pm meeting to discuss SW Master Plan? Bill, If Glenn M. is able to extend his visit,we can meet as planned,briefly. I will share items. We'll catch up later— telephone, email, etc. Also: It may help if RGA provides precise(exact as possible)earthwork calculation(CAD Vol. estimates)of cut/fill required to convert SB to retention basin III(4x WQV w/Aquatic bench). This may help ensure more realistic SWM Plan bond—could you do this? SWM/ESC bonds must be posted/recalculated (blocks 11,14)prior to block 12 (phase 2)/block 15 VSMP approval. This may be the right time,we feel,to update General VPDES Permit Registration Statement,revising block 9 (Attached form)to read: • Total Land Area of Development: 237.35 • Estimated Area to be Disturbed: RGA/OTV provide—please include all areas with Active ESC/SWM Plans. Include blocks 11, 14, 12, 15. Also, let's please update/keep current OTV VPDES Index that Bill Ledbetter was kind to prepare and submit last September(Attached). All, thanks for your help and patience. I have copied J. T.Newberry who is aware of VSMP-approval requirements relative to site plan/final plat approval for block 12 (phase 2)/block 15. 434.296-5832—x3069 From: BizHubEngineering@albemarle.org [mailto:BizHubEngineering@albemarle.org] Sent:Thursday, October 29, 2015 5:37 PM 2 To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: Message from KM_364e 3 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:30 PM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Subject: RE: OT 12 AND 15 ESC PLAN Bill, I don't know if you recall Mr. Bradshaw at the close as we were leaving(13-Oct) discussing graded contours with me in area between school PL/retention basin—this area may, in my judgment,benefit from jute mat/check dams,just to be on the safe side. Please consider it. We don't want erosion leeching onto school property. Just a thought—thanks. From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:23 PM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: RE:OT 12 AND 15 ESC PLAN They seem pretty straightforward and simple to me. I will make sure they have been addressed. Thanks. BL Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2©albemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:23 PM To: Bill Ledbetter Subject: RE: OT 12 AND 15 ESC PLAN These were 5-Oct comments, hope they're acceptable- A. VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion Control Plan(WP0201500066)—Virginia Code§62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESCP.This plan is disapproved,and the reasons are provided in the comments below.The erosion control plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-402. 1. Label Limits of Land Disturbance with this plan(exclude blocks 11, 14,etc.),sheets 2/3. 2. Sheet 4-Proposed contours extend off sheet. Show entire extent of proposed contours. 3. Sheet 4,7-Show existing contours at least 50-ft beyond property line to the east,Albemarle County Schools. 4. Sheet 4,9-648' contour label, E side of embankment face, is ambiguous. Clearly identify 648' contour. 1 *se Nimile Thanks, From: Bill Ledbetter[mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday,October 30, 2015 1:16 PM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: OT 12 AND 15 ESC PLAN John I noticed on the draft comments that Glenn is only looking/commenting on the SWM plan. Can you confirm the erosion control portion of the plan was ready to be approved with the earlier submittal? Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax 2 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 6:39 AM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Subject: FW: Message from KM_364e Attachments: SKM_364e-En15102916360.pdf From:John Anderson Sent:Thursday, October 29, 2015 5:59 PM To: Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org> Subject: FW: Message from KM_364e Glenn, Mark, I read Dave's note responding to Glenn's email, and realized Glenn would not read it until Monday. Without Glenn's permission I scanned/sent DRAFT Old Trail,block 12/15 VSMP comments to Bill. (Dave wrote,asking if we might do this.) Time is of the essence, and I felt these comments might give RGA a chance to prepare. I've not sent to Old Trail. Bill asks if he may forward to Dave? Mark,may he do this? Bill understands what I've done. He will not send draft comments to Old Trail without approval,Mark. I wanted Bill to have benefit of reading,considering, even discussing these with me prior to Monday. I checked Outlook. A meeting Monday appears unlikely, but I'll send an invitation. If Monday doesn't suit, and Friday does,that may in fact be better—without me. Bill understands that the attached comments are DRAFT. I didn't explain they were also basis of plan review training. These comments are Glenn's attempt to help where I cannot. These comments may/may not be final, since labeled DRAFT. Please let me know whether Bill may,with permission, share with Old Trail. These are Glenn's. A meeting may be the best time/place to discuss them. Thank you, Glenn Thank you, Mark From: BizHubEngineering@albemarle.org [mailto:BizHubEngineering@albemarle.org] Sent:Thursday,October 29, 2015 5:37 PM To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: Message from KM_364e 1 *NW 1.110e John Anderson From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:40 AM To: Bill Ledbetter Cc: Dave Brockman; Chris Mulligan; Muckley, Glenn;Todd Shifflett; Mark Hopkins;John Anderson; Mark Graham Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design Bill, that is correct. It does not appear a new bond will be required. Todd and Mark Hopkins can set up the pre-con whenever they are ready. As the site is already active, Mark Hopkins may want to go ahead. Todd can follow up with paperwork when he is back in the office tomorrow. From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:35 AM To:Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org>;John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org> Cc: Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com>; Chris Mulligan<CMulligan@roudabush.com>; Muckley, Glenn <glenn.muckley@stantec.com> Subject: FW: Block 12 pond design Glenn Thanks for the quick review and approval of the revised WPO plan. I greatly appreciate it. If I am reading your email correctly, the existing WPO bond that is in place can serve for the revised plan and we do not need to re-post/ re-compute a new bond for the plan. If this is correct, can we schedule a pre-construction meeting and get our grading permit for this work? If we can start grading prior to road/sewer bonds being posted it will be a great help. I will begin the road/sewer bond process immediately and should get them posted as soon as we get the amounts. Thanks again and please let me know. Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From:Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org> Date: November 17, 2015 at 8:18:00 AM EST To: David Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Cc:John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>,Todd Shifflett<tshifflett@albemarle.org>, Mark 1 Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org>, Doug Walker<dwalker3@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design Dave, This plan (WPO201500066) is approved. This plan serves as an alternative to the prior approved plan, WPO201400071. I believe that plan is bonded, and in that case can serve for this alternative also. Please let me know if I can do something further to help. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer VSMP Administrator Albemarle County From: David Brockman [mailto:dave@oldtrailvillage.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:45 AM To:Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Doug Walker <dwalker3@albemarle.org> Cc:John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>;Todd Shifflett<tshifflett@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design Hi Glenn, Were you able to find the plans we submitted last week? Can we expect a response today? I greatly appreciate your attention. Regards, Dave Brockman From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS@albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:29 PM To: David Brockman; Mark Graham; Doug Walker Cc: John Anderson; Todd Shifflett Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design I have not seen this submittal yet, but will look for it. From: David Brockman [mailto:dave@oldtrailvillage.com] Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:06 PM To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Doug Walker<dwalker3@albemarle.org>; Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS@albemarle.org> Subject: Block 12 pond design Hi Mark, Doug&Glenn; 2 On Tuesday we re-submitted the plan to Glenn Brooks for the block 12 pond.The revisions are a modification to our plan that reflect input from County Engineering,Stantec and RGA to achieve what we hope you will meet both the County's objectives and to keep us on track for the forthcoming master plan.This plan reflects: • Back slope of dam reduced to 2.5:1 (very near the 3:1 Glenn Desired) • Inclusion of a Weir wall at the forebay instead of earthen dam.The added expense of this Weir wall helped lower the dam and permanent pool elevation (achieving Glenn's desires to lower the pond below Old Trail Drive). • We contained and passed the 100 year storm thru the pond riser and eliminate the need for a rip-rap or concrete emergency spillway providing more accurate measurement of flow (achieving one of Glenn's objectives to both move away and lower this spillway from Old Trail Drive). • Maintained 65%removal rate (which is in excess of the 50%normally required removal rate). • Incorporated appropriate 10/10 2/2 storm criteria (a change back to more reasonable criteria that should have been stated previously). This pond design has come at an incredible expense to Old Trail Village. It has lasted over 18 months; included a costly challenge from Engineering to our grandfathering rights that should never been an issue; significantly increased cost and delays to completing a storm water master plan; added cost for two engineering firms to complete the work of one; created tension from a changing design criteria through the submittal process; caused financial harm to our builders; and is frustrating our homeowner who are unable to move into their homes. I appreciate your effort to expedite the permit approval and bond posting as quickly as possible, so we can get back to developing the real estate. Regards, David Brockman 3 'fir' '`/ John Anderson From: Glenn Brooks Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:18 AM To: David Brockman Cc: John Anderson;Todd Shifflett; Mark Graham; Doug Walker Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design Dave, This plan (WPO201500066) is approved. This plan serves as an alternative to the prior approved plan, WPO201400071. I believe that plan is bonded, and in that case can serve for this alternative also. Please let me know if I can do something further to help. Glenn Brooks, P.E. County Engineer VSMP Administrator Albemarle County From: David Brockman [mailto:dave@oldtrailvillage.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:45 AM To:Glenn Brooks<GBROOKS@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Doug Walker <dwalker3@albemarle.org> Cc:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org>;Todd Shifflett<tshifflett@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design Hi Glenn, Were you able to find the plans we submitted last week? Can we expect a response today? I greatly appreciate your attention. Regards, Dave Brockman From: Glenn Brooks [mailto:GBROOKS@albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:29 PM To: David Brockman; Mark Graham; Doug Walker Cc: John Anderson; Todd Shifflett Subject: RE: Block 12 pond design I have not seen this submittal yet, but will look for it. From: David Brockman [mailto:dave@oldtrailvillage.com] Sent:Thursday, November 12, 2015 2:06 PM 1 Ned To: Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Doug Walker<dwalker3@albemarle.org>; Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS@albemarle.org> Subject: Block 12 pond design Hi Mark, Doug&Glenn; On Tuesday we re-submitted the plan to Glenn Brooks for the block 12 pond.The revisions are a modification to our plan that reflect input from County Engineering, Stantec and RGA to achieve what we hope you will meet both the County's objectives and to keep us on track for the forthcoming master plan.This plan reflects: • Back slope of dam reduced to 2.5:1 (very near the 3:1 Glenn Desired) • Inclusion of a Weir wall at the forebay instead of earthen dam.The added expense of this Weir wall helped lower the dam and permanent pool elevation (achieving Glenn's desires to lower the pond below Old Trail Drive). • We contained and passed the 100 year storm thru the pond riser and eliminate the need for a rip-rap or concrete emergency spillway providing more accurate measurement of flow (achieving one of Glenn's objectives to both move away and lower this spillway from Old Trail Drive). • Maintained 65%removal rate (which is in excess of the 50%normally required removal rate). • Incorporated appropriate 10/10 2/2 storm criteria (a change back to more reasonable criteria that should have been stated previously). This pond design has come at an incredible expense to Old Trail Village. It has lasted over 18 months; included a costly challenge from Engineering to our grandfathering rights that should never been an issue; significantly increased cost and delays to completing a storm water master plan; added cost for two engineering firms to complete the work of one; created tension from a changing design criteria through the submittal process; caused financial harm to our builders; and is frustrating our homeowner who are unable to move into their homes. I appreciate your effort to expedite the permit approval and bond posting as quickly as possible, so we can get back to developing the real estate. Regards, David Brockman 2 John Anderson From: Bill Ledbetter <BLedbetter@roudabush.com> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:04 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE: BLOCK 31 GRADING EXHIBIT I am on my way in a few minutes with the grading exhibit. We had to resize some of the lots on Block 31, but no changes were made to the utility easements. I just want to be certain none of these changes are problematic for you. I will buzz you when I deliver the grading exhibit. Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax From: John Anderson [mailto:janderson2@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:03 AM To: Bill Ledbetter Cc: Johnathan Newberry Subject: RE: BLOCK 31 GRADING EXHIBIT Thanks for the kind note. I wish you the same,Bill. Visit anytime,thru Wed. Please call J.T.re.block 31 Final Plat Approval/signature submittal. 4 Dec 2015 Engineering comments are mainly notes. A single comment recommends revision. "Recommend tie for 46.45' residue boundary bearing S 06°26"17"17"E. Tie with Lot 4-5 boundary appears=43'±." If you'd like to send .PDF preview showing tie, I will respond within minutes. No need for print copy for Engineering. I've copied J.T. I can't recall whether Engineering is waiting on plan-plat-site design revisions for anything at OTV at the moment—but don't think so. I think we are current. Apart from 4 Dec recommendation for tie, is Engineering holding up block 31 FPT approval? Please check with J.T. on Planning Division expectations and needs for block 31 FPT Approval. You are always welcome to visit. 1 Thanks,Bill From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent:Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:51 AM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: BLOCK 31 GRADING EXHIBIT I will deliver 4 copies tomorrow. I hope to have the block 31 plat approved and recorded prior to the end of the year if possible. Can I bring you up to date copies of it as well? I would be happy to meet you if you have time. Do not worry about the bond reductions until after the holiday.Ana is taking off as well and they will just sit. Thanks for all you hard work. It is greatly appreciated by me and all of us at RGA! If I don't see you before, I hope you and yours have a great Christmas and a wonderful new year! BL Bill Ledbetter Sent from my iPad On Dec 20, 2015, at 10:35 AM,John Anderson<ianderson2@albemarle.org>wrote: Bill,please, if you would. If you are satisfied that this Exhibit addresses developer grading needs to prepare lots for sale to builders who then assume responsibility for grading and ESC measures specific to individual site construction, then please,yes,4 full-size copies would be helpful. Thanks for your note, for taking time to prepare this Exhibit. I work Mon-Wed,return 4-Jan, and will not work while away. Please let me know of any emergencies. I may be able to get to bond reductions for blocks 13B and 11 by Wed,but can't promise. Thanks again—best wishes for the holidays. From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter(Wroudabush.com] Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 3:24 PM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Cc: Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Subject: BLOCK 31 GRADING EXHIBIT Hi John Here is the grading exhibit for the Block 31 area. We are labeling it Phase 3 erosion control as this grading will take place after the roadway is established and directing the road drainage to the pond. Do you want me to shoot you several full size hard copies? Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 2 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax 3 Neme John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:37 AM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Subject: RE: BLOCK 31 GRADING EXHIBIT Bill,please, if you would. If you are satisfied that this Exhibit addresses developer grading needs to prepare lots for sale to builders who then assume responsibility for grading and ESC measures specific to individual site construction, then please, yes, 4 full-size copies would be helpful. Thanks for your note, for taking time to prepare this Exhibit. I work Mon-Wed, return 4-Jan,and will not work while away. Please let me know of any emergencies. I may be able to get to bond reductions for blocks 13B and 11 by Wed,but can't promise. Thanks again—best wishes for the holidays. From: Bill Ledbetter [mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 3:24 PM To:John Anderson<janderson2@albemarle.org> Cc: Dave Brockman<dave@oldtrailvillage.com> Subject: BLOCK 31 GRADING EXHIBIT Hi John Here is the grading exhibit for the Block 31 area. We are labeling it Phase 3 erosion control as this grading will take place after the roadway is established and directing the road drainage to the pond. Do you want me to shoot you several full size hard copies? Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax 1 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 6:15 PM To: 'Bill Ledbetter' Cc: Johnathan Newberry; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: OLD TRAIL BLOCK 31 Attachments: WP0201500066-block 15-31 ESC Ph II_120315.pdf Bill, Thanks for your note. Attached please find/rotate partial view of ESC plan sheet from Approved WPO201500066 (blocks 11, 14, 12, 15). I am grateful for offer of an Exhibit that shows developer-grading required to prepare build pads prior to sale of lots. It appears additional grading is required to prepare some or all block 31 Lots for sale. If mistaken,please let me know. We understand that builders may perform grading once lots are sold—backfill, leveling, or other grading coordinated through the building permit process. This type grading is not a developer responsibility,but rotated view shows proposed mass grading cannot reasonably be considered final developer grading. An Exhibit to place in WPO201500066 file will help guide inspection and limit misunderstandings—may help resolve any questions relating to WPO approval. It is standard practice for an ESC plan to show proposed developer grading(to point lots are sold). As it is,please prepare an Exhibit to show final proposed developer grading, Lots 1-7,block 31. Exhibit should show additional or modified ESC measures, if necessary. This is an exhibit not an Amendment. This is an unorthodox approach. I would like to confirm that email is accurate with respect to SWM for block 31. No additional SWM is required for Final Plat (FPT)/SUB201500191, Lots 1-7. Thanks for your patience. 434.296-5832—x3069 From: Bill Ledbetter[mailto:BLedbetter@roudabush.com] Sent:Thursday, December 03, 2015 2:11 PM To:John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Subject:OLD TRAIL BLOCK 31 John Following up on our conversation concerning Block 31 ESC and SWM from earlier today. I feel that the area shown on the 12/15 WPO plan that is labeled "Future Block 31 Lots" has sufficient perimeter erosion control devices for grading to take place beyond what is shown on the plan. We included the entire Future Block 31 area within our limits of disturbance and we showed erosion control measures along this perimeter for the grading shown. If additional grading within the existing limits of disturbance takes place, I feel the currently approved measures are sufficient. If it will help you and the inspectors, I am happy to provide a revised grading exhibit for this area. 1 I want to also make certain that it is clear that no further SWM measures are going to be required for future homes on the Block 31 Lots. We provided 100% required treatment for all areas draining to the pond and did not make use of the available 30% credit for Lickinghole Basin even though we paid the basin fee for the lots. The future homes on the Block 31 lots cannot drain to the SWM ponds. Using the guidance document provided by Mark Graham last November, we are capturing and treating greater than 75% of the drainage in this area and are not using the 30% available treatment credit provided by Lickinghole Regional Basin. Treatment for these homes on the Block 31 Lots will be provided by Lickinghole Regional Basin. Please let me know if you need anything additional or if you need any clarification on this. Thanks Bill Bill Ledbetter Roudabush, Gale and Associates 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 434-977-0205 office 540-649-0190 cell 434-296-5220 fax 2