HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400092 Review Comments WPO VSMP 2016-07-01Short Review Comments Report for:
WPO201400092
SubApplication Type:
Foothills Crossing II - VSMP
Stormwater Management/BMP Plan
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan
Date Completed:12/15/2014
Reviewer:Justin Deel CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:04/29/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:08/18/2015
Reviewer:Justin Deel CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:02/01/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:05/20/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:06/16/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:See Recommendations
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:07/08/2016
Reviewer:Ana Kilmer
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:NOTE: THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE 3 STORMWATER AGREEMENTS
6/28/2016 - 3 swas were submitted. one was not properly notarized
6/29/2016 - swa was resubmitted and swas were delivered to CAO
7/8/2016 - swa agreements recorded at clerks office, deed book/page numbers 4784/684(Route240
Holdings, LLC); 4784/680 (Route 240, LLC); 4784/676 (Foothills Crossing II)
Division:
Date Completed:07/01/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:Approved
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Page:1 of 1 County of Albemarle Printed On:March 22, 2018
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:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
(Rev. 4)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
(Rev. 4)
Reviewer:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Foothill Crossing II
WPO -2014-00092
Collins Engineering
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
11 November 2014
1 April 2015
22 July 2015
19 January 2016
29 April 2016
15 December 2014
29 April 2015
18 August 2015
1 February 2016
20 May 2016
Matt Wentland
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.
Provide an updated SWPPP that reflects the current plan revisions. An operator must be named,
and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is no designated contractor or
project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
1. Even though the project has been moved off of TMP 56-5713, an easement plat will still be
required for the offsite work (TMPs 56A2-01-61 & 56K -A1) as the owners are not the same as
TMP 56-57.
2. Provide an updated SWM Calculations Package to reflect the plan revisions.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESOP.
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. The plan shows grading on TMPs 56A2-01-61 and 56KA1, in addition to the site parcels. Please
remove or provide application signatures or easements. The plan should show final contours at
least 5' off of downhill property lines to ensure proper erosion control can occur on the property.
As currently shown, the owners of these parcels would need to be on the application and bonds, or
signed easements provided for the work.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re -submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=cden.gwpo
File: WP0201400092 R4.doc
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project title:
Project file number:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Reviewer:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Foothill Crossing II
WPO -2014-00092
Collins Engineering
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
11 November 2014
1 April 2015
22 July 2015
19 January 2016
15 December 2014
29 April 2015
18 August 2015
1 February 2016
Matt Wentland
County Code section 17-410 and Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:34 requires the VSMP authority to
act on any VSMP permit by issuing a project approval or denial. This project is denied. The
rationale is given in the comments below. The application may be resubmitted for approval if all
of the items below are satisfactorily addressed. The VSMP application content requirements can
be found in County Code section 17-401.
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-405. A SWPPP must
contain (1) a PPP, (2) an ESOP, (3) a SWMP, and (4) any TMDL measures necessary.
1. The registration statement is for a total land area of development of 46.4 acres. Provide this area
and illustrate how proposed project fits into it. The VSMP and grading permit should only be for
the area of land disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. The provided registration statement is a photocopy of the
registration statement for previous Foothill Crossing projects, with the acreages altered to reflect
this project. Please provide a registration statement specific to this particular project. If part of a
larger disturbance, please show how this project fits into said acreage on registration statement.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
2. If a SWPPP has already been approved for the area referenced in the registration statement, it will
need to be amended for this development. Please note, recent inspections of the existing project
did not have a SWPPP on-site.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed. A "SWPPP" has been provided with this submission.
3. Provide notice of General Permit coverage.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. A notice of general permit coverage for the 46.4 acres
has been provided. However, it is still unclear how the proposed disturbance (30.05 acres)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
associated with this project fits into this acreage. Please provide explanation, otherwise a new
registration statement may be required. Additionally, your cover sheet states that the project area
is 16.74 acres.
(Rev.2) Comment not addressed. Your notice of general permit does not appear to be associated
with your registration statement. The last submission contained a different registration statement,
which was for the "Daley parcel" (46.88 acres). I suspect that this was the correct registration
statement, just please show how acreage for this project fits in.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
4. Provide Nature of Activity (see County Code 17-404A1).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. An operator must be named, and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is
no designated contractor or project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 3) Comment partially addressed. A signature is required on this and other documents
in the SWPPP
Revision 2 Comment
6. Please include all items listed in County Code section 17-405.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-404.
Please address all items listed in section 17-404 of the County Code.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25-870-108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17-403.
1. Please present your argument(s) as to why this project should be considered grandfathered and
therefore subjected to Type IIC design criteria. It is unclear to us how this project fits into the
provided registration statement. For new plans and a new registration statement, the Type IIB
criteria would apply. This issue must be resolved before a detailed review of facility designs can
be performed.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please revise your design to follow the natural drainage of the site topography. We feel that your
current design would be problematic and inadequate in capturing stormwater in the western
portion of the site. Please provide an additional facility in this area. Coordinate to provide
adequate sediment trapping for erosion and sediment control, along natural topography, outside
limits of final lot and road grading, and coordinated for conversion to permanent stormwater
management. This comment must be satisfactorily resolved before further detailed review of the
stormwater management plan can occur.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. The additional wet pond is on an adjacent parcel and
owner signatures and/or easements have not been provided. See E&SC comment 12 below.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Sheet 2 states that the area of SWM #2 is to be included
within the project limits via boundary line adjustment. Your comment response is that easements
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
for the offsite pond have been provided. However, neither easements nor evidence of a BLA
application are found with this submission.
(Rev. 3) Comment not addressed. The response that easements are forthcoming is noted.
3. Please check the title of your Post -Development Stormwater Management Plan (says Pre -
Development).
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
4. Provide 3:1 slopes leading down to the basin, or a safety shelf completely surrounding. This slope
must also meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for disturbance of managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments
5. Please remove the note "Future Development Area Modeled at 65% Impervious to be Treated by
SWM Facility" from plans and include in site data summary, calculations, etc. Designing your
facility for future development is fine; however, only site features that are actually proposed with
this plan can be approved as being treated by the proposed SWM facilities.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
6. The "C" soils on your site are not reflected in your VRRM spreadsheet. Likewise, you're showing
all "B" soils in your TR -55 worksheet. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
7. The drainage area boundary between DA #2B and DA #2C cannot be followed. Will this whole
slope not drain directly south to the stream, bypassing the facility? The inlets in the swale at the
western edge of the parcel should be in a sump, otherwise this area will drain to the stream as well.
Also, how will the eastern corner of DA #lA drain to the SWM facility? You're also showing a
drain here that empties into a swale leading to the stream. Please ensure that drainage areas are
accurate.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
8. Wet pond side slopes should have a grade of 4:1 — 5:1 (DEQ Specification No. 14). Your slopes
go from 3:1 to 2:1 on your plan and are 2:1 on you sections. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment partially addressed. Providing 4:1 slopes up to the treat volume elevation is
acceptable. However, there are still 2:1 slopes in and leading up to both wet ponds. Any basin or
pond should have 3:1 slopes for maintenance and safety [VSMH Vol. 1, 3.01-13]. Please
eliminate all 2:1 slopes in and around wet ponds.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
9. Drainage from your proposed earthen ditch leading into SWM facility #lA/Sediment Basin 2 must
make a 45 degree turn in order to utilize the riprap outlet protection. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. This appears largely unchanged.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
10. Provide labels for SWM facilities on plans.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
11. The easternmost forebay in SWM #lA will be ineffective as the outlet leading into it is adjacent to
the forebay embankment. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
12. Please shift your scales on SWM facility details so that they are not hidden in the plan binding.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
13. SWM facility #2B does not meet the length/width or flow path ratio of 3:1 (Table 14.2). Please
correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment partially addressed. Please provide baffle curtain detail(s).
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 8
14. Level 2 wet ponds require landscaping and aeration (Table 14.2), neither of which are found in
this plan. Please provide.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. A landscaping plan was not found. Additionally, please
include note in wet pond details concerning landscaping (e.g. See sheet xx for wet pond
landscaping requirements).
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
15. Please explain hatched area on Sheet Layout Plan, Sheet 1.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
16. Provide mitigation for stream buffer disturbances within existing sanitary sewer line easements.
(Rev. 2) Comment retracted.
17. Please update your SWM calculation packet. Calculations involving multiple drainage areas from
multiple prior phases, with repeat designations, are very difficult to follow. Please clearly state
your approach(s) and provide clear justification(s). For the sake of clarity, please only include
pertinent calculations and information. Also, reference to undeveloped drainage areas "from
approved Foothill Phase II-III plans" is not valid. Particularly, DA #lA and #113 which are being
altered by the Phase IV & V plan currently under review.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
18. It is not convincing that the proposed earthen ditch will adequately route drainage from the
northern corner of DA #lA to the proposed SWM facility, especially without seeing the final lot
grading. Please address this.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. There should not be WPO buffer disturbance associated with the Alley F cul-de-sac. Please
correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Please provide a blow up of this area clearly showing that the
proposed cul-de-sac can be constructed with no more WPO impact than shown (0.05 acres). At
1":80' it is difficult to confirm that the WPO impact will not be greater here.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
Revision 2 Comments
20. Please clean up your SWM facility detail sheets. There is a lot of data on these sheets that is
difficult to decipher. Please clearly show how the design meets the level 2 wet pond requirements
in Specification No. 14 and outline how it is to be constructed to meet those requirements. All
other information can be included in your SWM calculations packet.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
21. Please show existing and proposed grades on sections and reduce the vertical to horizontal
exaggeration.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
22. Please consult VA DEQ Stormwater Specifications Appendix A Earthen Embankments. Proposed
embankments constructed of undisturbed soils will not be approved. Embankments must be
specified to be constructed of sufficiently impervious compacted materials. This appears to be
partially addressed in your E&SC cross sections; however, you are showing existing grade on the
downstream side of the embankment. How are you able to install the compacted clay core while
leaving the downstream embankment undisturbed?
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
23. Sediment forebays cannot be part of the treatment or detention volume. This appears to be the
case. Please address.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
Virginia Code §62.1-44.15:55 requires the VESCP authority to approve or disapprove an ESOP.
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. Please show complete and labeled WPO buffer limits. Part of the WPO buffer is not shown (north
side of development). It appears the basin and north side of the development need adjustment to
avoid this buffer. Buffer disturbances must be avoided where possible.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more evidence for the corrected stream
buffer at the west of the site other than the date of the as -built.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed. Plat provided showing average adjusted stream buffer.
2. There does not appear to be a public road access to this site, and it relies on prior plans to establish
access. This will necessitate that any approvals be contingent on other plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Diversion dikes are too long and will be difficult to maintain positive drainage. Provide additional
sediment traps and/or basins. The diversion to both SB I and S132 are winding up and down and
look untenable.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Diversion dikes cannot go through home lots.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Include the square shaped area southwest of the proposed stockpile in your limits of disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Your "Future Development Area Modeled at 65& Impervious to be Treated by Basin" text box is
covering a proposed contour. Please adjust.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Provide sediment control measure to protect church property on Union Mission Lane in the middle
north of the site.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Label existing contours at SB 1 on Sheet 10.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. Please provide plan legend.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Your sanitary sewer line goes through a diversion dike in Phase II, please correct. Please provide
additional measures.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Phase II plan shows diversion dike outside both the limits of disturbance and drainage area, please
correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Phase H plan shows grading on TM 56-57B and 56A1-60 and 56KA1, in addition to the site
parcels. Please remove or provide application signatures or easements. The plan should show
final contours at least 5' off of downhill property lines to ensure proper erosion control can occur
on the property. As currently shown, the owners of these parcels would need to be on the
application and bonds, or signed easements provided for the work.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An E&SC plan cannot be approved that which relies on
offsite disturbances, including a sediment basin, without the owner(s) of these parcels' signatures
on the application or a signed easement.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Easements not found with this submission.
(Rev. 3) Comment not addressed. The response that easements are forthcoming is noted.
13. Please show existing or approved sanitary sewer and water easements/lines east of proposed
project site. There's no tie-in shown for the proposed lines on this side of the project.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 8
14. Please label your proposed sanitary sewer line. It looks very similar to your diversion dike symbol.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments
15. Please remove non -existing conditions (Project Phases IV & V) from Existing Conditions Sheet.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
16. Please provide symbols for all E&SC measures. For example, symbols for silt fence and diversion
dikes are not shown at all.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
17. The eastern portion of the Sediment Basin 2 drainage area boundary could not be followed. Is the
area east of the diversion dike draining to the sediment basin? Also, Phase H drainage area to
Sediment Basin 1 cannot be followed, see southwest corner of site.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
18. Provide silt fence at the proposed earthen ditch (middle north of the site) to protect WPO buffer.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. Provide adequate E&SC measures at the end of Alley D, or include the area southeast of the cul-
de-sac in your LOD.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
20. Please shift your scales on sediment basin details so that they are not hidden in the plan binding.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
21. Provide emergency spillways for sediment basins. Note that emergency spillways should not be
constructed over fill material; however, if unavoidable, they should be constructed of a non -
erodible material (VESCH III -86). If and where using "earthen" spillways, specify vegetation.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
22. Please provide more proposed contour labels on plans, particularly at sediment basins, which have
none on the actual plans.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Revision 2 Comment
23. Please see SWM Comment 22, above.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
24. Please provide basin dimensions on plans and details.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
25. The basin cross sections are too convoluted, largely due to the extreme H:V scale exaggeration, to
be practically utilized. Please address.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
26. Please remove the mention of topsoil from your dam core note.
(Rev. 3) Comment addressed.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re -submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2-4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre -construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre -construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre -construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre -construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?department=cden.gwpo
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
File: WPO201400092 R2.doc
COLLINS E Y 00 GARRETT ST,SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.corn
January 7, 2016
Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SUB-2014-00187-Foothill Crossing II; WPO-2014-00092
Dear Justin:
Thank you for your comments dated August 18, 2015. Revised plans are hereby submitted
incorporating the following changes in response to the items in your letter:
SUB-2014-00187
A. Engineering
1. —
2. —
3.
4. —
5. —
6. —
7. —
8. —
9. —Both Alley F and Alley D extend to the R-6/R-1 boundary line and have temporary
turnarounds and easements(labeled on Sheet 3). These alleys will continue on and
tie back into streets with the development of the adjacent parcel. We also adjusted
the alignment of Alley F to further reduce stream buffer impacts.
10. —
11. —
12. —
13. —
14. -
15. —
16. —
17. The structure numbers and storm sewer network changed with the previous
submission based on a redesign of the SWM and the creation of SWM facility behind
lots 54-55. The two locations that you had raised concern were the sumps the cul-de-
sacs of Freemont Street and Newport Street. We have modified the lot grading to
provide overland relief. A swale will be cut behind the back of sidewalk and between
the proposed homes to allow emergency overflow to crest the sidewalk and convey to
the existing stream. This is shown on Sheet 5.
'fir' seri
Revision 1 Comments
The applicant acknowledges this comment.
Revision 2 Comments
The applicant has reached out to Rachel Falkenstein, and she has no comments or
objections.
The applicant has discussed with Rachel Falkenstein, and she is looking into
proceeding forward with this.
B. VDOT
1. The sets are marked preliminary.
2. The centerline offset is 4' and the other point is 20' offset from the center of the
travel lane (as described in Appendix B, Section B-3 D). A label was added to Sheet
3 at the intersection of Freemont St&Alley D noting these typical dimensions.
3. Thank you for this clarification. The MOT plan will be submitted as a separate
submission.
4. The alignment of Alley C has been shifted per your comment.
5. The intersection angle is 80°at Park Ridge Drive and Eastern Avenue.
6. The crosswalks have been revised as requested.
7. A. The sidewalk transition has been adjusted to make it more gradual, but it must hit
a certain spot at the property line based on the smaller existing ROW outside of our
site.
B. The layout of that parcel is only conceptual at this point. Site distance easements
will be taken into account with that layout geometry with its future submission;
however,the site distance line will most likely be in the ROW and not require an
easement.
8. The waterlines have been updated based on comments from the ACSA. Jeremy
Lynn is very specific with his location preferences.
9. A turn lane has been added.
10. The bike lane is now 5' in this location.
11. The new CG-12 Detail has been provided
12. Road profiles have been checked and updated with revised water line items.
13. The angle between storm pipes have been added to the calcs so that the junction loss
are properly shown.
14. A. The calcs and profiles have been updated.
B. The calcs and profiles have been updated.
C. The drainage description has been updated.
C. ACSA
SHEET 1
1. The applicant acknowledges this comment.
2. Projected wastewater flows and development schedule have been provided.
3. The applicant acknowledges this comment.
4. The benchmark is now shown clearly.
SHEET 4
1. Blow-off is now provided.
2. Blow-off is now provided.
3. Fire hydrant text has been updated.
4. The lateral has been updated.
5. Thrust block called out of fire hydrant adjacent to MH 23.
6. The water connection on Westlake Phase 1 will be through Binion Drive,which will
continue south and then head east as part of a rezoning plan. This includes all of the
Soo'
area between this project and Foothills Phase 4-5. The 10" Binion Drive waterline
will eventually connect to Eastern Avenue, and then run south to tie into the 12"
waterline of Westlake Hills Phase 1. This will provide the looped connection.
SHEET 8
1. 3' of cover are already provided over all waterlines.
SHEET 11
1. See comment#6 of Sheet 4. The looped connection to Westlake Hills will be
provided via Binion Drive, which will tie into Eastern Avenue south of the
intersection in question.
SHEET 15
1. Pipe material labels reflect the update.
SHEET 19
1. There is no water connection at this location based on other comment responses.
WPO-2014-00092
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)
1. A revised registration statement specific to this project has been included.
2. -
3. The general permit has been corrected and an exhibit of this project's area is
included.
4. -
5. An operator has been named on the SWPPP.
6. All items in County Code section 17-405 are now included.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan(PPP)
1.
C. Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP)
1. -
2. Easements for the offsite pond are forthcoming.
3. -
4. -
5. -
6. -
7. -
8. The wet pond side slopes have been revised to 4:1 in the area of treatment volume.
Above the treatment volume elevation, where the pond functions strictly for
detention, slopes of up to 3:1 have been utilized. The profiles have been updated and
a note with this information has been provided on the pond plan detail.
9. The ditch has been shifted and the riprap adjusted to reduce the angle at the point of
outfall.
10. -
11. -
12. -
13. A baffle curtain detail is now provided on sheet 7.
14. Landscaping for the SWM ponds has been moved to the SWM detail sheets. A note
has been added to the SWM plans requiring a diffuser for aeration in each wet pond.
15. -
16. -
17. -
18. -
19. Alley F is removed from the stream buffer.
20. The SWM detail sheets have been revised to remove excess design information.
21. The profile scale has been revised.
22. The pond top of dam has been raised to create an embankment in fill as requested.
23. The forebays are no longer counted.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(ESCP)
1. -
2. -
3. -
4. -
5. -
6. -
7. -
8. -
9. -
10. -
11. -
12. The required easements for offsite work are forthcoming.
13. -
14. -
15. -
16. -
17. -
18. -
19. -
20. -
21. -
22. -
23. See response to SWM item 22 above.
24. Basin dimensions are now provided on the plans.
25. The basin profile scales have been revised.
26. The topsoil mention has been removed from the dam core note.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Sincerely,
Scott Collins, PE
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
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:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Foothill Crossing II
WPO- 2014 -00092
Collins Engineering
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
11 November 2014
1 April 2015
22 July 2015
15 December 2014
29 April 2015
18 August 2015
Justin Deel
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. The registration statement is for a total land area of development of 46.4 acres. Provide this area
and illustrate how proposed project fits into it. The VSMP and grading permit should only be for
the area of land disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. The provided registration statement is a photocopy of the
registration statement for previous Foothill Crossing projects, with the acreages altered to reflect
this project. Please provide a registration statement specific to this particular project. If part of a
larger disturbance, please show how this project fits into said acreage on registration statement.
2. If a SWPPP has already been approved for the area referenced in the registration statement, it will
need to be amended for this development. Please note, recent inspections of the existing project
did not have a SWPPP on -site.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed. A "SWPPP" has been provided with this submission.
3. Provide notice of General Permit coverage.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. A notice of general permit coverage for the 46.4 acres
has been provided. However, it is still unclear how the proposed disturbance (30.05 acres)
associated with this project fits into this acreage. Please provide explanation, otherwise a new
registration statement may be required. Additionally, your cover sheet states that the project area
is 16.74 acres.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
(Rev.2) Comment not addressed. Your notice of general permit does not appear to be associated
with your registration statement. The last submission contained a different registration statement,
which was for the "Daley parcel" (46.88 acres). I suspect that this was the correct registration
statement, just please show how acreage for this project fits in.
4. Provide Nature of Activity (see County Code 17 -404A 1).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. An operator must be named, and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is
no designated contractor or project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed.
Revision 2 Comment
6. Please include all items listed in County Code section 17 -405.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
Please address all items listed in section 17 -404 of the County Code.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403.
1. Please present your argument(s) as to why this project should be considered grandfathered and
therefore subjected to Type IIC design criteria. It is unclear to us how this project fits into the
provided registration statement. For new plans and a new registration statement, the Type IIB
criteria would apply. This issue must be resolved before a detailed review of facility designs can
be performed.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please revise your design to follow the natural drainage of the site topography. We feel that your
current design would be problematic and inadequate in capturing stormwater in the western
portion of the site. Please provide an additional facility in this area. Coordinate to provide
adequate sediment trapping for erosion and sediment control, along natural topography, outside
limits of final lot and road grading, and coordinated for conversion to permanent stormwater
management. This comment must be satisfactorily resolved before further detailed review of the
stormwater management plan can occur.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. The additional wet pond is on an adjacent parcel and
owner signatures and/or easements have not been provided. See E &SC comment 12 below.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Sheet 2 states that the area of SWM #2 is to be included
within the project limits via boundary line adjustment. Your comment response is that easements
for the offsite pond have been provided. However, neither easements nor evidence of a BLA
application are found with this submission.
3. Please check the title of your Post - Development Stormwater Management Plan (says Pre -
Development).
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
4. Provide 3:1 slopes leading down to the basin, or a safety shelf completely surrounding. This slope
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
must also meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for disturbance of managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments
5. Please remove the note "Future Development Area Modeled at 65% Impervious to be Treated by
SWM Facility" from plans and include in site data summary, calculations, etc. Designing your
facility for future development is fine; however, only site features that are actually proposed with
this plan can be approved as being treated by the proposed SWM facilities.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
6. The "C" soils on your site are not reflected in your VRRM spreadsheet. Likewise, you're showing
all `B" soils in your TR -55 worksheet. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
7. The drainage area boundary between DA #213 and DA #2C cannot be followed. Will this whole
slope not drain directly south to the stream, bypassing the facility? The inlets in the swale at the
western edge of the parcel should be in a sump, otherwise this area will drain to the stream as well.
Also, how will the eastern corner of DA #IA drain to the SWM facility? You're also showing a
drain here that empties into a swale leading to the stream. Please ensure that drainage areas are
accurate.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
8. Wet pond side slopes should have a grade of 4:1 — 5:1 (DEQ Specification No. 14). Your slopes
go from 3:1 to 2:1 on your plan and are 2:1 on you sections. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment partially addressed. Providing 4:1 slopes up to the treat volume elevation is
acceptable. However, there are still 2:1 slopes in and leading up to both wet ponds. Any basin or
pond should have 3:1 slopes for maintenance and safety [VSMH Vol. 1, 3.01 -13]. Please
eliminate all 2:1 slopes in and around wet ponds.
9. Drainage from your proposed earthen ditch leading into SWM facility #IA/Sediment Basin 2 must
make a 45 degree turn in order to utilize the riprap outlet protection. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. This appears largely unchanged.
10. Provide labels for SWM facilities on plans.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
11. The easternmost forebay in SWM #IA will be ineffective as the outlet leading into it is adjacent to
the forebay embankment. Please correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
12. Please shift your scales on SWM facility details so that they are not hidden in the plan binding.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
13. SWM facility #2B does not meet the length /width or flow path ratio of 3:1 (Table 14.2). Please
correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment partially addressed. Please provide baffle curtain detail(s).
14. Level 2 wet ponds require landscaping and aeration (Table 14.2), neither of which are found in
this plan. Please provide.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. A landscaping plan was not found. Additionally, please
include note in wet pond details concerning landscaping (e.g. See sheet xx for wet pond
landscaping requirements).
15. Please explain hatched area on Sheet Layout Plan, Sheet 1.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
16. Provide mitigation for stream buffer disturbances within existing sanitary sewer line easements.
(Rev. 2) Comment retracted.
17. Please update your SWM calculation packet. Calculations involving multiple drainage areas from
multiple prior phases, with repeat designations, are very difficult to follow. Please clearly state
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
your approach(s) and provide clear justification(s). For the sake of clarity, please only include
pertinent calculations and information. Also, reference to undeveloped drainage areas "from
approved Foothill Phase II -III plans" is not valid. Particularly, DA #IA and #113 which are being
altered by the Phase IV & V plan currently under review.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
18. It is not convincing that the proposed earthen ditch will adequately route drainage from the
northern corner of DA #IA to the proposed SWM facility, especially without seeing the final lot
grading. Please address this.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. There should not be WPO buffer disturbance associated with the Alley F cul -de -sac. Please
correct.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Please provide a blow up of this area clearly showing that the
proposed cul -de -sac can be constructed with no more WPO impact than shown (0.05 acres). At
1 ":80' it is difficult to confirm that the WPO impact will not be greater here.
Revision 2 Comments
20. Please clean up your SWM facility detail sheets. There is a lot of data on these sheets that is
difficult to decipher. Please clearly show how the design meets the level 2 wet pond requirements
in Specification No. 14 and outline how it is to be constructed to meet those requirements. All
other information can be included in your SWM calculations packet.
21. Please show existing and proposed grades on sections and reduce the vertical to horizontal
exaggeration.
22. Please consult VA DEQ Stormwater Specifications Appendix A Earthen Embankments. Proposed
embankments constructed of undisturbed soils will not be approved. Embankments must be
specified to be constructed of sufficiently impervious compacted materials. This appears to be
partially addressed in your E &SC cross sections; however, you are showing existing grade on the
downstream side of the embankment. How are you able to install the compacted clay core while
leaving the downstream embankment undisturbed?
23. Sediment forebays cannot be part of the treatment or detention volume. This appears to be the
case. Please address.
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 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.
Please show complete and labeled WPO buffer limits. Part of the WPO buffer is not shown (north
side of development). It appears the basin and north side of the development need adjustment to
avoid this buffer. Buffer disturbances must be avoided where possible.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more evidence for the corrected stream
buffer at the west of the site other than the date of the as- built.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed. Plat provided showing average adjusted stream buffer.
There does not appear to be a public road access to this site, and it relies on prior plans to establish
access. This will necessitate that any approvals be contingent on other plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Diversion dikes are too long and will be difficult to maintain positive drainage. Provide additional
sediment traps and /or basins. The diversion to both SB 1 and S132 are winding up and down and
look untenable.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
4. Diversion dikes cannot go through home lots.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Include the square shaped area southwest of the proposed stockpile in your limits of disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Your "Future Development Area Modeled at 65& Impervious to be Treated by Basin" text box is
covering a proposed contour. Please adjust.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Provide sediment control measure to protect church property on Union Mission Lane in the middle
north of the site.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Label existing contours at SB 1 on Sheet 10.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. Please provide plan legend.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Your sanitary sewer line goes through a diversion dike in Phase II, please correct. Please provide
additional measures.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Phase II plan shows diversion dike outside both the limits of disturbance and drainage area, please
correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Phase II plan shows grading on TM 56 -57B and 56A1 -60 and 56KA1, in addition to the site
parcels. Please remove or provide application signatures or easements. The plan should show
final contours at least 5' off of downhill property lines to ensure proper erosion control can occur
on the property. As currently shown, the owners of these parcels would need to be on the
application and bonds, or signed easements provided for the work.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An E &SC plan cannot be approved that which relies on
offsite disturbances, including a sediment basin, without the owner(s) of these parcels' signatures
on the application or a signed easement.
(Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Easements not found with this submission.
13. Please show existing or approved sanitary sewer and water easements /lines east of proposed
project site. There's no tie -in shown for the proposed lines on this side of the project.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. Please label your proposed sanitary sewer line. It looks very similar to your diversion dike symbol.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments
15. Please remove non - existing conditions (Project Phases IV & V) from Existing Conditions Sheet.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
16. Please provide symbols for all E &SC measures. For example, symbols for silt fence and diversion
dikes are not shown at all.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
17. The eastern portion of the Sediment Basin 2 drainage area boundary could not be followed. Is the
area east of the diversion dike draining to the sediment basin? Also, Phase II drainage area to
Sediment Basin 1 cannot be followed, see southwest corner of site.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
18. Provide silt fence at the proposed earthen ditch (middle north of the site) to protect WPO buffer.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
19. Provide adequate E &SC measures at the end of Alley D, or include the area southeast of the cul-
de -sac in your LOD.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
20. Please shift your scales on sediment basin details so that they are not hidden in the plan binding.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
21. Provide emergency spillways for sediment basins. Note that emergency spillways should not be
constructed over fill material; however, if unavoidable, they should be constructed of a non -
erodible material (VESCH III -86). If and where using "earthen" spillways, specify vegetation.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
22. Please provide more proposed contour labels on plans, particularly at sediment basins, which have
none on the actual plans.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Revision 2 Comment
23. Please see SWM Comment 22, above.
24. Please provide basin dimensions on plans and details.
25. The basin cross sections are too convoluted, largely due to the extreme H:V scale exaggeration, to
be practically utilized. Please address.
26. Please remove the mention of topsoil from your dam core note.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2 -4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre - construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre - construction conference form, and pay the remainder
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre - construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre - construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http: / /www.albemarle. org/deptforms .asp ?department= cdengwno
File: WPO201400092 R2.doc
COLLINS E G I '''S t GARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.corn
June 22, 2015
Rachel Falkenstein
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE: SUB-2014-00187-Foothill Crossing II; WPO-2014-00092
Dear Rachel:
Thank you for your comments dated May 5, 2015. Revised road plans are hereby submitted
incorporating the following changes in response to the items in your letter:
Planning
1. Easements are provided for the roadway and temporary construction on the adjacent
parcels.
2. Parcel 056A2-04-00-000A2 will be dedicated to public use prior to construction of the
required roadway connection to Hill Top Street.
Engineering
1. —
2. The adjusted stream buffer at the west of the project parcel was recorded at D.B. 1974,
Pg. 487-492. This document is provided with this submission.
3. —
4. Pavement and ROW information of existing streets is now shown on Existing Conditions.
5. The open space has been revised.
6. —
7. —
8. The profiles have been updated to show street and alley intersections.
9. A turnaround is not required if less than 150' from the nearest intersection. This
guideline is found in the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendix B Subdivision Street
Design Guide, Section F Cul-de-Sacs and Turn-Arounds. It is also a recurring comment
from Fire &Rescue on other projects that we are required at 150' to provide a turn-
around.
10. —
11. —
12. —
13. See response to #14.
14. Stationing for Park Ridge Drive and Extension is provided on the plans on sheet 12A
Road Stations Plan.
15. —
16. -
17. The grading has been modified to provide overland relief at Structures 30 and 38. A
swale will be cut behind the back of sidewalk and between the proposed homes to allow
emergency overflow to crest the sidewalk and convey to the existing stream.
18. —
19. —
20. —
VDOT
1. The applicant notes this requirement.
2. This project is by-right, no rezoning or waivers obtained at this point.
3. The connection to Hill Top Street is located at 38°04'05.87"N and 78°41'33.33" W.
The connection to Park Ridge Drive is located at 38°03'55.64"N and 78°41'06.96" W.
4. Plan legend is now provided.
5. A benchmark is provided at Hill Top Street and shown on the Existing Conditions and
Grading Sheet
6. The posted speed limits are listed on the Existing Conditions Sheet
7. The proposed lot acreage is provided on Sheet 3.
8. The existing lot ROW is listed for Hill Top on the Existing Conditions Sheet
9. An additional sheet 12A Road Stations plan was added to show centerline stationing, PT,
and PC.
10. Existing and proposed easements are labeled.
11. The sight distance triangles are now fully shown.
12. The sight line arrow has been adjusted to the center of the travelway.
13. The Asphalt Pavement Restoration permit is attached. The detail is also on our Detail
Sheet.
14. The tie-in to Hill Top Street begins after at a dead-end after the last driveway on the road.
All existing residences will maintain access during the connection to Hill Top Street.
15. Sheet 3 now shows the sight line as it extends onto Hill Top Street.
16. The curb ramps have been revised.
17. The Road Design Manual Appendix B Subdivision Street Design Guide, Section D
Intersections, Item 3 Minimum Radii states that when traffic volume of the receiving
street is less than 400 vehicles per day, a radius of not less than 15' may be used. The
radius in question was increased to 18', the maximum allowable for the current design.
The vehicles per day making a left turn out of the alley, or a right from the cul-de-sac
onto the alley will be negligible.
18. The curb and gutter to edge of pavement transitions now continue around the radius and
the gutter pan does not taper.
19. The road centerline angles of intersection are now provided.
20. The Alley C and Newport Street alignment meets all centerline radius requirements. The
entrance alignment is required to provide adequate width for the proposed future units.
21. Site distance triangles and profiles have been added to all commercial entrances.
22. Eastern Avenue and Park Ridge Drive intersect at an 80 degree angle, within the
allowable intersection tolerances.
Skisoi
23. The projected Eastern Avenue alignment is now shown on the Road Stations Plan sheet
12A.
24. The waterline has been shifted out from under the wheel path on Park Ridge Drive. The
proposed 10"waterline will not run down Eastern Avenue at this project. At a future
time, the waterline down Binion Street will connect to a new development, and tie into
Eastern Avenue and Westlake Hills at the south.
25. Road names have been added. Road Stationing is shown on the Road Alignment Sheet
26. Water line is now shown. Spotshots have been added.
27. Structure 14 has been relocated.
28. Structure 46 was moved slightly. Structures 46 & 48 are located as close as possible to
their respective intersection to capture the maximum drainage
29. A CG-9D has been added to Park Ridge Drive to access the SWM facility.
30. Sheet 7 has been updated to include Eastern Avenue
31. Sheet 8 has been updated to reflect these comments and other design changes.
32. Drainage calcs have been updated to reflect and match profiles.
33. Drainage calcs have been updated to reflect and match profiles.
34. Drainage calcs have been updated to reflect and match profiles.
35. Site distance triangles have been updated.
36. Landscaping has been updated.
37. Crosswalk markings have been added.
38. The ESC & SWM Plan is submitted for review with this resubmission.
WPO-2014-00092
A. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)
1. The VSMP and grading permit has been revised to only include the area of land
disturbance with this project.
2. A new SWPPP for the project has been provided.
3. The general permit has been revised for this project with corrected information.
4. —
5. An operator has been named on the SWPPP.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan(PPP)
1. —
C. Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP)
1. —
2. Easements for the offsite pond are provided in this resubmission.
3. The post-development stormwater management plan title has been revised.
4. —
5. The Future Development note has been removed from the plan sheets,the design
volume has been retained as"excess capacity".
6. The B and C soils are now shown on the plans and reflected in the TR-55
calculations.
7. The boundary between DA#2C and DA#2B has been revised, homes will drain
towards the street and the proposed drop inlets, the remainder will run off as
bypass.
8. The wet pond side slopes have been revised to 4:1 in the area of treatment
volume. Above the treatment volume elevation, where the pond functions strictly
for detention, slopes of up to 2:1 have been utilized. The profiles have been
updated and a note with this information has been provided on the pond plan
detail.
9. The ditch has been shifted and the riprap adjusted to reduce the angle at the point
of outfall.
10. The SWM facilities are now labeled on the pre and post-development plan views.
11. The SWM 1 A easternmost forebay outfall has been shifted away from the forebay
embankment.
12. The scales on the SWM facility details have been moved out of the binding.
13. SWM facility#2B will utilize permanent baffles to increase the flow path ratio.
A note has been added to the plans requiring the installation of permanent baffles.
14. Landscaping for the SWM ponds has been included on the landscaping plan. A
note has been added to the SWM plans requiring a diffuser for aeration in each
wet pond.
15. The sheet layout plan has been revised to remove the hatch.
16. Mitigation is not required within existing easements per the Albemarle County
Code, Section 17-602(b) public sewer improvements are exempt from duties to
retain, establish or maintain a stream buffer.
17. The SWM calculations have been revised as requested, the Water Balance test of
channel adequacy is now provided instead of the previous channel analysis.
18. The earthen ditch will be maintained within a SWM maintenance and access
easement. The future plan will capture this area where any future overlap may
occur.
19. The WPO buffer disturbance associated with Alley F has been designed to be as
minimal as possible. Per the Albemarle County Code, Section 17-604(a)
disturbance in the buffer may be permitted within the first landward 50 horizontal
feet if the improvement is necessary infrastructure to allow reasonable use of the
lot. The applicant requests that this small encroachment into the stream buffer be
permitted by the program authority per the code section.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP)
1. The plat is submitted with these plans.
2. —
3. —
4. —
5. —
6. —
7. —
8. —
9. —
10. —
11. —
12. The required easements for offsite work are provided with this plan.
13.
14. —
Nome
15. All non-existing conditions have been removed from the existing conditions
sheet.
16. Symbols for all ESC measures are now provided.
17. The sediment basin 2 drainage area has been adjusted to reflect the new drainage
ditch placement. The sediment basin 1 drainage boundary has been adjusted as
well.
18. Silt fence is provided behind the two proposed ditches.
19. Silt fence has been added to the area southeast of the Alley D terminus.
20. The sediment basin detail scales have been shifted out of the binding.
21. Grass `earthen' emergency spillways are now provided in cut.
22. Additional contours have been added to the ESC plans, the basins are labeled in
all views.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Sincerely,
Scott Collins, PE
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
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:
(Rev. 1)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Reviewer:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Foothill Crossing II
WPO- 2014 -00092
Collins Engineering
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
11 November 2014
1 April 2015
15 December 2014
29 April 2015
Justin Deel
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. The registration statement is for a total land area of development of 46.4 acres. Provide this area
and illustrate how proposed project fits into it. The VSMP and grading permit should only be for
the area of land disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
2. If a SWPPP has already been approved for the area referenced in the registration statement, it will
need to be amended for this development. Please note, recent inspections of the existing project
did not have a SWPPP on -site.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
3. Provide notice of General Permit coverage.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. A notice of general permit coverage for the 46.4 acres
has been provided. However, it is still unclear how the proposed disturbance (30.05 acres)
associated with this project fits into this acreage. Please provide explanation, otherwise a new
registration statement may be required. Additionally, your cover sheet states that the project area
is 16.74 acres.
4. Provide Nature of Activity (see County Code 17 -404A 1).
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
An operator must be named, and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is
no designated contractor or project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
Please address all items listed in section 17 -404 of the County Code.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403.
1. Please present your argument(s) as to why this project should be considered grandfathered and
therefore subjected to Type IIC design criteria. It is unclear to us how this project fits into the
provided registration statement. For new plans and a new registration statement, the Type IIB
criteria would apply. This issue must be resolved before a detailed review of facility designs can
be performed.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Please revise your design to follow the natural drainage of the site topography. We feel that your
current design would be problematic and inadequate in capturing stormwater in the western
portion of the site. Please provide an additional facility in this area. Coordinate to provide
adequate sediment trapping for erosion and sediment control, along natural topography, outside
limits of final lot and road grading, and coordinated for conversion to permanent stormwater
management. This comment must be satisfactorily resolved before further detailed review of the
stormwater management plan can occur.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. The additional wet pond is on an adjacent parcel and
owner signatures and/or easements have not been provided. See E &SC comment 12 below.
3. Please check the title of your Post - Development Stormwater Management Plan (says Pre -
Development).
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
4. Provide 3:1 slopes leading down to the basin, or a safety shelf completely surrounding. This slope
must also meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for disturbance of managed slopes.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments
5. Please remove the note "Future Development Area Modeled at 65% Impervious to be Treated by
SWM Facility" from plans and include in site data summary, calculations, etc. Designing your
facility for future development is fine; however, only site features that are actually proposed with
this plan can be approved as being treated by the proposed SWM facilities.
6. The "C" soils on your site are not reflected in your VRRM spreadsheet. Likewise, you're showing
all `B" soils in your TR -55 worksheet. Please correct.
7. The drainage area boundary between DA #2B and DA #2C cannot be followed. Will this whole
slope not drain directly south to the stream, bypassing the facility? The inlets in the swale at the
western edge of the parcel should be in a sump, otherwise this area will drain to the stream as well.
Also, how will the eastern corner of DA #IA drain to the SWM facility? You're also showing a
drain here that empties into a swale leading to the stream. Please ensure that drainage areas are
accurate.
8. Wet pond side slopes should have a grade of 4:1 — 5:1 (DEQ Specification No. 14). Your slopes
go from 3:1 to 2:1 on your plan and are 2:1 on you sections. Please correct.
9. Drainage from your proposed earthen ditch leading into SWM facility #IA/Sediment Basin 2 must
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
make a 45 degree turn in order to utilize the riprap outlet protection. Please correct.
10. Provide labels for SWM facilities on plans.
11. The easternmost forebay in SWM #IA will be ineffective as the outlet leading into it is adjacent to
the forebay embankment. Please correct.
12. Please shift your scales on SWM facility details so that they are not hidden in the plan binding.
13. SWM facility #213 does not meet the length/width or flow path ratio of 3:1 (Table 14.2). Please
correct.
14. Level 2 wet ponds require landscaping and aeration (Table 14.2), neither of which are found in
this plan. Please provide.
15. Please explain hatched area on Sheet Layout Plan, Sheet 1.
16. Provide mitigation for stream buffer disturbances within existing sanitary sewer line easements.
17. Please update your SWM calculation packet. Calculations involving multiple drainage areas from
multiple prior phases, with repeat designations, are very difficult to follow. Please clearly state
your approach(s) and provide clear justification(s). For the sake of clarity, please only include
pertinent calculations and information. Also, reference to undeveloped drainage areas "from
approved Foothill Phase II -III plans" is not valid. Particularly, DA # I A and #1B which are being
altered by the Phase IV & V plan currently under review.
18. It is not convincing that the proposed earthen ditch will adequately route drainage from the
northern corner of DA #IA to the proposed SWM facility, especially without seeing the final lot
grading. Please address this.
19. There should not be WPO buffer disturbance associated with the Alley F cul -de -sac. 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 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. Please show complete and labeled WPO buffer limits. Part of the WPO buffer is not shown (north
side of development). It appears the basin and north side of the development need adjustment to
avoid this buffer. Buffer disturbances must be avoided where possible.
(Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Please provide more evidence for the corrected stream
buffer at the west of the site other than the date of the as- built.
2. There does not appear to be a public road access to this site, and it relies on prior plans to establish
access. This will necessitate that any approvals be contingent on other plans.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Diversion dikes are too long and will be difficult to maintain positive drainage. Provide additional
sediment traps and/or basins. The diversion to both SB 1 and S132 are winding up and down and
look untenable.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
4. Diversion dikes cannot go through home lots.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Include the square shaped area southwest of the proposed stockpile in your limits of disturbance.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Your "Future Development Area Modeled at 65& Impervious to be Treated by Basin" text box is
covering a proposed contour. Please adjust.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Provide sediment control measure to protect church property on Union Mission Lane in the middle
north of the site.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
8. Label existing contours at SB 1 on Sheet 10.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
9. Please provide plan legend.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
10. Your sanitary sewer line goes through a diversion dike in Phase II, please correct. Please provide
additional measures.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Phase 11 plan shows diversion dike outside both the limits of disturbance and drainage area, please
correct.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
12. Phase II plan shows grading on TM 56 -57B and 56A1 -60 and 56KA1, in addition to the site
parcels. Please remove or provide application signatures or easements. The plan should show
final contours at least 5' off of downhill property lines to ensure proper erosion control can occur
on the property. As currently shown, the owners of these parcels would need to be on the
application and bonds, or signed easements provided for the work.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. An E &SC plan cannot be approved that which relies on
offsite disturbances, including a sediment basin, without the owner(s) of these parcels' signatures
on the application or a signed easement.
13. Please show existing or approved sanitary sewer and water easements /lines east of proposed
project site. There's no tie -in shown for the proposed lines on this side of the project.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
14. Please label your proposed sanitary sewer line. It looks very similar to your diversion dike symbol.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Revision 1 Comments
15. Please remove non - existing conditions (Project Phases IV & V) from Existing Conditions Sheet.
16. Please provide symbols for all E &SC measures. For example, symbols for silt fence and diversion
dikes are not shown at all.
17. The eastern portion of the Sediment Basin 2 drainage area boundary could not be followed. Is the
area east of the diversion dike draining to the sediment basin? Also, Phase II drainage area to
Sediment Basin 1 cannot be followed, see southwest corner of site.
18. Provide silt fence at the proposed earthen ditch (middle north of the site) to protect WPO buffer.
19. Provide adequate E &SC measures at the end of Alley D, or include the area southeast of the cul-
de -sac in your LOD.
20. Please shift your scales on sediment basin details so that they are not hidden in the plan binding.
21. Provide emergency spillways for sediment basins. Note that emergency spillways should not be
constructed over fill material; however, if unavoidable, they should be constructed of a non -
erodible material (VESCH III -86). If and where using "earthen" spillways, specify vegetation.
22. Please provide more proposed contour labels on plans, particularly at sediment basins, which have
none on the actual plans.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2 -4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre - construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre - construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre - construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre - construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
hlt2://www.albemarle.org/deptfonns.asp?department--cdengno
File: WP0201400092 Rl.doc
COLLI N5 yovie. ARRETT ST, SUITE K CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22902
434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX
www.collins-engineering.com
February 25, 2015
Justin Deel
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SUB-2014-00187& WPO-2014-00092 Foothill Crossing II
Dear Justin:
Thank you for your comments dated December 22, 2014. Revised plans are hereby submitted
incorporating the following changes in response to the items in your letter:
Planning (SUB-2014-00187)
1. A new revised preliminary subdivision plat is under review consistent with the design
submitted herein.
2. The R-2 portion will meet required density.
3. Street trees have been updated.
4. Conservation plan& checklist added to the Landscaping Details sheet.
Engineering Road Plan Review Comments (SUB-2014-00187)
1. The source and date of topographic information is provided on the cover sheet.
2. The WPO buffer limits have been revised.
3. The sanitary sewer and water tie ins are now shown.
4. Labels of existing R/W and pavement widths have been added.
5. Open Space areas have changed and are delineated on the Layout Plan.
6. The label has been removed.
7. Profile and labels have been updated.
8. The Park Ridge Drive profile has been updated with street intersections.
9. Temporary turnaround is no longer required on Binion Street due to proximity of other
intersections less than 150'.
10. Storm profiles updated to have clearer labels and linetypes.
11. The applicant acknowledges this comment.
12. The applicant has revised the SWM plan as required.
13. As built info has been utilized in the redesign of Park Ridge Drive, existing spot shots are
shown on the profile.
14. The stationing has been updated. It is also now shown on the grading sheet.
15. Under drains and cross drains have been added to the profiles.
16. The Drainage Calcs sheet has been updated.
17. The sumps are now located at natural lows and are provided overland relief.
18. The plan has been updated to no longer include Maryland Street.
19. The Binion Street road profile has updated.
20. The road plan checklist has been consulted.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
1. The land area has been revised for the area of land disturbance.
2. The SWPPP amendment is submitted with this plan set.
3. The notice of General Permit coverage is provided.
4. The nature of activity is now provided.
5. The operator is now named and has signed the documents.
Pollution Prevention Plan(PPP)
1. The PPP has been revised with this submission.
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
1. As previously discussed, the project is submitted under the new Virginia SWM
guidelines.
2. An additional pond has been added to capture runoff from the natural drainage of site
topography.
3. The title of the post-development plan has been revised.
4. The basin now has 3:1 slopes leading down to it, as required.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan(ESCP)
1. The WPO buffer is now shown in its entirety as required, the development has been
shifted to avoid buffer disturbance wherever possible.
2. The project now provides access from both Park Ridge Drive and Hill Top Street.
3. The diversion dikes have been reduced in lengths and additional sediment trapping
measures incorporated into the plans (one additional basin).
4. The diversion dikes no longer pass through home lots.
5. The LOD has been revised.
6. The plan view has been revised to avoid text conflicts.
7. Silt fencing has been provided to protect the church property.
8. The existing contours at SB1 are now labeled.
9. A plan legend is now provided.
10. A note concerning the diversion and sanitary sewer is now provided on the plans.
11. The phase II plan has been revised.
12. Easements will be provided for off-site work prior to final road plan approval.
13. The existing or approved sanitary and water lines east of the proposed project are now
shown.
14. The proposed sanitary sewer line is now labeled.
Fire and Rescue
1. No parking signs will be provided on one-side of the street.
2. The connection to Hill Top Street will be installed.
Virginia Department of Transportation (SUB-2014-00187)
1. The design has changed and the profiles and calc sheets have been updated.
2. The layout has been changed again, and is now similar to the preliminary plat.
3. Line of sight profiles have been provided.
4. The design speeds are now shown on the profiles.
5. The commercial entrance separation minimums are met and the distances between
intersections are listed on sheet 3.
6. Eastern Avenue south of the intersection of Park Ridge Drive is now part of a separate
project but the intersection itself and the north branch to the property line is now shown.
7. Maryland Street no longer exists but centerline radii are provided for all other streets.
8. Private driveway entrances as well as the dwelling units are not shown on the road plans,
but will be provided with the final site plan.
9. Sanitary runs now cross streets as close to 90° as feasible.
10. Yard drains now have private easements outside of the ROW.
11. Storm structures are all labeled.
12. CD-1s and CD-2s are now shown on the road profiles.
13. More spot elevations are provided within the cul-de-sacs ensuring positive drainage.
14. The drainage design has been reviewed to target flow velocities between 3 and 10 fps,
when achievable. In cases where the velocity is necessary to be over 10 fps due to
design constraints, the velocity will still be below 15 fps.
15. The viewports have been updated.
16. The throat lengths have been updated.
17. The profiles and calc sheets have been updated.
18. The profiles and calc sheets have been updated.
19. The profiles and calc sheets have been updated.
20. The applicant acknowledges this comment. The easements for storm sewer located
outside of the right-of-way will be private, and will be platted as such.
21. Temporary turnarounds are provided where required.
22. The CG-12 detail is now provided.
23. CD-1 & CD-2 details are now provided.
24. The drainage calcs have been updated.
25. The grades and sanitary rims have been updated.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Sincerely,
Scott Collins, PE
�pF A
vt�r�1Q
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:
Reviewer:
VSMP Permit Plan Review
Foothill Crossing II
WPO- 2014 -00092
Collins Engineering
Foothill Crossing, Inc.
11 November 2014
15 December 2014
Justin Deel
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. The registration statement is for a total land area of development of 46.4 acres. Provide this area
and illustrate how proposed project fits into it. The VSMP and grading permit should only be for
the area of land disturbance.
2. If a SWPPP has already been approved for the area referenced in the registration statement, it will
need to be amended for this development. Please note, recent inspections of the existing project
did not have a SWPPP on -site.
3. Provide notice of General Permit coverage.
4. Provide Nature of Activity (see County Code 17- 404A1).
5. An operator must be named, and must sign the certification statement and applications. If there is
no designated contractor or project manager, it should be the owner of the property.
B. Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP)
The PPP content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -404.
1. Please address all items listed in section 17 -404 of the County Code.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
C. Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
VSMP Regulation 9VAC25- 870 -108 requires the VSMP authority to approve or disapprove a
SWMP. This plan is disapproved, and the reasons are provided in the comments below. The
stormwater management plan content requirements can be found in County Code section 17 -403.
1. Please present your argument(s) as to why this project should be considered grandfathered and
therefore subjected to Type IIC design criteria. It is unclear to us how this project fits into the
provided registration statement. For new plans and a new registration statement, the Type IIB
criteria would apply. This issue must be resolved before a detailed review of facility designs can
be performed.
2. Please revise your design to follow the natural drainage of the site topography. We feel that your
current design would be problematic and inadequate in capturing stormwater in the western
portion of the site. Please provide an additional facility in this area. Coordinate to provide
adequate sediment trapping for erosion and sediment control, along natural topography, outside
limits of final lot and road grading, and coordinated for conversion to permanent stormwater
management. This comment must be satisfactorily resolved before further detailed review of the
stormwater management plan can occur.
3. Please check the title of your Post - Development Stormwater Management Plan (says Pre -
Development).
4. Provide 3:1 slopes leading down to the basin, or a safety shelf completely surrounding. This slope
must also meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for disturbance of managed slopes.
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 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. Please show complete and labeled WPO buffer limits. Part of the WPO buffer is not shown (north
side of development). It appears the basin and north side of the development need adjustment to
avoid this buffer. Buffer disturbances must be avoided where possible.
2. There does not appear to be a public road access to this site, and it relies on prior plans to establish
access. This will necessitate that any approvals be contingent on other plans.
3. Diversion dikes are too long and will be difficult to maintain positive drainage. Provide additional
sediment traps and/or basins. The diversion to both SB 1 and S132 are winding up and down and
look untenable.
4. Diversion dikes cannot go through home lots.
5. Include the square shaped area southwest of the proposed stockpile in your limits of disturbance.
6. Your "Future Development Area Modeled at 65& Impervious to be Treated by Basin" text box is
covering a proposed contour. Please adjust.
7. Provide sediment control measure to protect church property on Union Mission Lane in the middle
north of the site.
8. Label existing contours at SB 1 on Sheet 10.
9. Please provide plan legend.
10. Your sanitary sewer line goes through a diversion dike in Phase II, please correct. Please provide
additional measures.
11. Phase II plan shows diversion dike outside both the limits of disturbance and drainage area, please
correct.
12. Phase II plan shows grading on TM 56 -57B and 56A1 -60 and 56KA1, in addition to the site
parcels. Please remove or provide application signatures or easements. The plan should show
final contours at least 5' off of downhill property lines to ensure proper erosion control can occur
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
on the property. As currently shown, the owners of these parcels would need to be on the
application and bonds, or signed easements provided for the work.
13. Please show existing or approved sanitary sewer and water easements /lines east of proposed
project site. There's no tie -in shown for the proposed lines on this side of the project.
14. Please label your proposed sanitary sewer line. It looks very similar to your diversion dike symbol.
The VSMP permit application and all plans may be resubmitted for approval when all comments have
been satisfactorily addressed. For re- submittals please provide 2 copies of the complete permit package
with a completed application form.
Engineering plan review staff are available from 2 -4 PM on Thursdays, should you require a meeting to
discuss this review.
Process;
After approval, plans will need to be bonded. The bonding process is begun by submitting a bond estimate
request form and fee to the Department of Community Development. One of the plan reviewers will
prepare estimates and check parcel and easement information based on the approved plans. The County's
Management Analyst will prepare bond agreement forms, which will need to be completed by the owner
and submitted along with cash, certificates or sureties for the amounts specified. The agreements will need
to be approved and signed by the County Attorney and County Engineer. This may take 2 -4 weeks to
obtain all the correct signatures and forms.
Stormwater Management Facilities Maintenance agreements will also need to be completed and recorded.
The County's Management Analyst or other staff will prepare the forms and check for ownership and
signature information. The completed forms will need to be submitted along with court recording fees.
After bonding and agreements are complete, county staff will need to enter project information in a DEQ
database for state application processing. DEQ will review the application information based on local
VSMP authority approval. At this time, the DEQ portion of the application fees will need to be paid
directly to the state. For fastest processing, this is done electronically with the emails provided on the
application. DEQ should notify applicants with instructions on how to pay fees. When DEQ approves the
application, they will issue a permit coverage letter. This should be copied to the county.
After DEQ coverage is issued, via the coverage letter, the County can hold a pre - construction conference.
Applicants will need to complete the request for a pre - construction conference form, and pay the remainder
of the application fee. The form identifies the contractor and responsible land disturber, and the fee
remaining to be paid. This will be checked by county staff, and upon approval, a pre - construction
conference will be scheduled with the County inspector. At the pre - construction conference, should
everything proceed satisfactorily, a joint VSMP and grading permit will be issued by the County so that
work may begin.
County forms can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
http://www.albemarle.org/deptfonns.asp?department--cdengmTo
File: E1_vsmp_ review _ FoothillCrossingII _wpo20l400092.doc