Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO201400070 Correspondence 2014-11-11 John Anderson From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:47 AM To: Brian P. Smith Cc: John Anderson Subject: RE: FCCI: Final Site Plan and VSMP amendment Brian, You should not include WPO sheets in the final site plan. However we do need to see any permanent site improvements such as drainage systems and retaining wall details on the final site plan. See the final site plan checklist for what we will be looking for on the final site plan. Hope this helps. Rachel From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe @embargmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:34 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Rachel Falkenstein Subject: Re: FCCI: Final Site Plan and VSMP amendment John, Good idea. I can easily resubmit the VSMP sheets to you for the new alternate layout. And it would be nice not to include with the final site plan submittal all the drainage area maps, routings, curb inlet calcs,pre- and post- development sheets, etc. Let me know what you find out. Thanks! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe@embargmail.corn From: "John Anderson" <janderson2 @albemarle.org> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bospe(a�embarcimail.com> Cc: "Rachel Falkenstein" <rfalkenstein a(�albemarle.orq> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:28:50 AM Subject: RE: FCCI: Final Site Plan and VSMP amendment I'll speak with Rachel From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe@embargmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:27 AM To: John Anderson Cc: pastorfccintl.org; Glenn Brooks Subject: Re: FCCI: Final Site Plan and VSMP amendment 1 '410100e "qui John, Wow! That sounds strange. And cumbersome as well. So, are you saying Rachel will not ask you to review the final site plan package? But who approves the retaining wall. Do I eliminate all the items you recently approved for the VSMP on the site plan? ie, don't show the storm items on the site plan. I so do feel that I am working for the county and not preparing a set of plans for the contractor. HELP! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: "John Anderson" <janderson2(a7albemarle.orq> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe @embaromail.com> Cc: pastor(a�fccintl.org, "Glenn Brooks" <GBROOKS @albemarle.orq> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:17:11 AM Subject: RE: FCCI: Final Site Plan and VSMP amendment Brian, My concern is Engineering cannot approve site plans. I know it would be easier, but the VSMP amendment plan should not include site plans—please ref plan sheet index of Approved WP0201400070. Thanks, Brian. From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe(aembargmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 9:38 AM To: John Anderson Subject: FCCI: Final Site Plan and VSMP amendment John, Good morning! I back to work on FCCI and have an organizational question for you. I have two tasks in front of me. One to gain Final Site Plan approval and one that will show the VSMP-WP0201400070 amendment. Both will have the revised rear parking lot that will satisfy the Fire Marshall access concerns. Can I combine these plans into one complete set? I hope so as my brain is taxed to the limit by working with multiple designs during the last month or so. It's amazing to me that I haven't accidentally shown you the wrong layout with our VSMP review! Here's the index I am working with. Some of the sheets are the ones you just reviewed. Thanks! INDEX C1.0 - Cover sheet C2.0 - Ex. Topography& Demolition-North C2.1 - Ex. Topography&Demolition-Middle C2.2 - Ex. Topography&Demolition-South C2.3 - Ex. Topography&Demolition-Rt. 250 West C2.4 - Ex. Topography&Demolition-Rt. 250 East C3.0 - Site Plan-North C3.1 - Site Plan-Middle C3.2 - Site Plan-South C3.3 - Entrance/Rt. 250 Improvements & Sight Triangles - West C3.4 - Entrance/Rt. 250 Improvements & Sight Triangles - East C4.0 - Entrance Profile 2 L5.0, - Landscape Plan `o. L5.1 - Landscape Detail Plan L5.2 - Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan C6.0 - Lighting Plans C6.1 - Lighting Details C6.2 - Lighting Details C7.0 - Site Notes &Details C8.0 - Storm Profiles C8.1 - Storm Profiles C8.2 - Storm Profiles &Table C9.0 - Filterra Details C9.1 -Filterra Drainage Area Map C10.0 - Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative C10.1 - Erosion& Sediment Control Plan-North C10.2 - Erosion& Sediment Control Plan- Middle C10.3 - Erosion& Sediment Control Plan- South C10.4 - Erosion& Sediment Control Plan- Entrance C10.5 - Erosion& Sediment Control Details C10.6 - Erosion& Sediment Control Plan Drainage Area Map C11.0 - Pre-Development Drainage Area Map C11.1 -Post-Development Drainage Area Map C12.0 - Onsite Drainage Area Map C12.1 - Curb Inlet Calculations C13.0 - Offsite Drainage Area Map C14.0 - Stream Buffer Disturbance Plan C15.0 - Critical Slopes Study C16.0 - SWPPP &Pollution Prevention Plan S1 - Retaining Walls S2 - Retaining Walls S3 -Retaining Walls Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe(a,embargmail.com 3 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 12:11 PM To: 'Brian P. Smith' Cc: 'pastor @fccintl.org' Subject: RE: FCCI: SWPPP report Attachments: CGP2014.pdf Brian, Minor revisions- Section 1—Registration statement-/3 edits: Item#3-Location zip code: 22911-3609 Item#6—HUC(12-digit):020802040404 [link: http://dswcapps.dcr.virginia.gov/htdocs/maps/HUExplorer.htm ] :: . r1: j t J ,,,,," '_U�°�IF,;3rlr,v i'. `, F m ill,. S t1n ,rIalto ,.4♦4' f r..rf'S., _ SS rry S +V. �I' f,,,,- Hydrologic units Identified , I:SO te•drpq I.drp: 1 -ra r nr.,.va 1 aan.r.a ' HUC 17 rVAHU6 r Nam* :"s".'w^:7aa74tt Nrsarra k..i.rs'-csi ,b.r. Iti. r.al 1` .v S 4 Item#8—Revise Estimated Project start date: November 15,2014 1 Replace Section 9.Certification with revised Certification identical with VPDES GP Part III K 4. Text- 4. Certification. Any person signing a document under Part III K 1 or 2 shall make the following certification; 1 certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand this document and that this document and all attachments were prepared in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.' Section 11. -please Attach copy of the GP(Attached) Thank you, Brian—excellent job From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpsae(aembargmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 7:16 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Wayne Frye Subject: FCCI: SWPPP report John, Good morning. Please review the attached SWPPP report. If acceptable, I will ask Wayne to sign and will deliver with the reduced set of 11 x 17 plans. How many sets would you like? Thanks. Wayne- Please review as well as you are providing your signature. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434)296-3644 (c) bpspe @embargmai l.com 2 "fir. w John Anderson From: Brian P. Smith [bpspe @embargmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 7:16 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Wayne Frye Subject: FCCI: SWPPP report Attachments: Stormwater Pollution_Prevention_Plan_SWPPP template(1).pdf John, Good morning. Please review the attached SWPPP report. If acceptable, I will ask Wayne to sign and will deliver with the reduced set of 11 x 17 plans. How many sets would you like? Thanks. Wayne- Please review as well as you are providing your signature. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434)296-3644 (c) bpspe@embarqmail.com 1 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:17 PM To: 'Brian P. Smith' Subject: RE: WP0201400070 Attachments: IMG_20141031_111133_771.jpg; IMG_20141031_111153_520.jpg recommend- F., Pollution Prevention Awareness 1. Personnel involved in clearing,grading, or general construction activities receive initial (first-day)tour of site, with emphasis on critical resources(steep slopes, Shadwell Creek). 2. Identify Limits of Disturbance for all personnel—on plans, stake in field. Identify stream buffer impacts—on plans, stake in field. Explain ESC measures pre-requisite to land disturbance. 3. Explain that if ESC measures are not installed (per plans) and functional (per inspection),then no grading permissible. No land disturbance prior to ESC measures. 4. Any new personnel receive tour/training—#1-3, above. ( Ultimate VPDES GP compliance responsibility lies with Construction Activity Operator) 5. Orientation for personnel unfamiliar with ESC: explain control measures, explain individual ESC maintenance duties/responsibilities. 6. Stress need to report and not neglect signs of deterioration or damage to any ESC measure, or PPP practice. 7. Explain consequence of failing to maintain ESC measures(ref.VPDES GP),or properly report. 8. Stress housekeeping; spill prevention;care when fueling; use and proper disposal of liquids. 9. Explain where spill prevention/response kits located; explain how to use. 10. Explain what may and may not be placed in solid waste dumpster. 11. Instruct personnel in proper disposal of hazardous waste. 12. Explain on-site location of SWPPP doc, MSDS sheets. 13. Explain location of emergency phone numbers. 14. Explain expectation in event of spills. 15. Monitor concrete truck wash-out. 16. Perform inspections as required. 17. Furnish refresher training(1 x mo). 18. Maintain records, items 1-17. Attached photos show simple concrete wash-out(straw bales, plastic); appears effective if maintained. Useful life expectancy brief Sec.-7—for this project site: NA Thanks, Brian From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe @embargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:12 PM To: John Anderson Subject: Re: WP0201400070 John, I don't know how to address the following portions of the SWPPP report. Can you help? A. Pollution Prevention Awareness 1 (Describe training and procedures to provide awareness and compliance for all measures in this document; waste management, wash waters, prevention measures, etc.) Section 7. Discharges to impaired waters, surface waters within an applicable TMDL wasteload allocation, and exceptional waters. (Provide detailed measures for any applicable TMDL) Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy,VA 22974 (434) 296-3644(c) bpspe@embaramail.com From: "John Anderson" <ianderson2aalbemarle.orq> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspeta'�.embaramail.com> Cc: "Glenn Brooks" <GBROOKSaalbemarle.orq>, pastorafccintl.orq Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 1:48:33 PM Subject: RE: WP0201400070 Excellent revisions. 1.-5., below, addressed. Anticipate SWPPP tomorrow- Thank you, Brian From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:38 AM To: 'Brian P. Smith' Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: WP0201400070 Brian, Thanks for speaking with me yesterday. I realize you are traveling. I am available 12-5pm today should you have questions. As discussed, after comparing revised plans(13-Oct)against review comments (Attached), we are close. Please provide revisions below to speed SWM-ESC plan approval: 1. Furnish notes,C8.0,C8.2, beneath `C' line storm profile, `E' line storm profile that read: "Detention system profile pipe length includes end sections. Hydrologic modeling(C12.0)does not include end sections." Words to that effect. Ref.7-Oct Engineering plan review comments: B.3.f.(i),and B.3.g.(i)—Attached. 2. Revise these sheets to show 3-line (as opposed to 4-line) rear detention system:L5.2,C11.1, C10.2, C13.0, C14.0, C16.0. 3. Ensure that C10.2 includes SWM underground detention system L x DIA dimensions for both 3-line detention systems(front/rear). 4. Delete extraneous line drawn across plan view of SWM Control MH-C3 (sheet C8.0). 5. Sheets C10.6 and C16.0—revise limits of disturbance (LOD), drain field,C16.0, so LOD is consistent between sheets. 6. Furnish whatever additional SWPPP documents you may have. I will ask Dr. Frye the same,via separate email. 2 ' Note:With (future)Amended WPO Application: sheet C10.6—revise 0.3799 Ac. pavement to read 0.2041,Short Version BMP Computations, C10.6,to reflect credit for paved area runoff treated by Filterra units. Revision not required at this time. It is unusual to send comments by email, but 29-Oct, Dr. Frye, Pastor of FCCI,wrote to explain there is urgency. I appreciate all you have done. With revised plans-2 complete sets(All sheets), and 2 additional sets of sheets listed above-the SWMP and ESCP for FCCI will be approved the day I receive them. This is normally 1-2 days after ACCD receives plans downstairs. No fee with requested revisions, but please provide application form for tracking. No owner signature on application form, as revisions are clarifications, or corrections of a minor nature. Please be sure that every plan sheet is sealed. Feel free to speak with Dr. Frye, so that he is aware of review status. Please feel free to call if you have questions—I am available after 12. Thanks for your patience—safe travels. John E.Anderson,PE Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development J County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 3 John Anderson From: Brian P. Smith [bpspe @embargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:09 AM To: John Anderson Subject: Re: WP0201400070-FCCI John, Good morning! I dropped off the revised VSMP plans yesterday along with the form you sent to Wayne and his$250 check. Is that the correct form to request a bond estimate? I had given him a different one and just wanted to check with you. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy,VA 22974 (434) 296-3644(c) bpspe(clembargmail.com From: "John Anderson" <janderson2(a2albemarle.orq> To: pastor @fccintl.org Cc: "Brian P. Smith" <bpsbe @embarqmail.com>, "Glenn Brooks" <GBROOKS(c�albemarle.orq> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 9:51:32 AM Subject: WP0201400070-FCCI Dr. Frye, I spoke with Brian last Thursday, and sent an informal list of minor revisions to him, requesting change and specific plan sheets. He was traveling, but I feel that he will tend to request quickly,then ESC-SWM plans can be approved. I need additional help, however— 1. We need the SWPPP. 2. We need construction estimates(material-labor)for underground detention systems. Are you are able to share estimates for this particular item? Please request WPO(VSMP) bond estimate as soon as possible. We cannot act on this request until ESC-SWM plans are approved, but I anticipate approval the day we receive revised plans, normally a day or two after submission to department. The WPO bond estimate is an engineering task:an estimate for underground stormwater detention should help improve accuracy of the bond estimate. Once Engineering completes VSMP bond estimate, bonding involves steps beyond our group: legal review+stormwater maintenance agreements. In addition,once bonding is complete, it will take VDEQ several days(at least)to issue a VPDES permit, at which point,you may request a preconstruction meeting. You have been very patient—please help with these several items, if possible. I hope to be well into the bonding process by the end of the week. We need: SWPPP documents, construction estimates for the 3-line underground detention systems, and a VSMP bond request($250 fee; form Attached). Regards, John John E.Anderson,PE Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle.Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday,October 31, 2014 9:38 AM To: 'Brian P. Smith' Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: WPO201400070 Attachments: WPO201400070-FCCI-100714-revl.pdf Brian, Thanks for speaking with me yesterday. I realize you are traveling. I am available 12-5pm today should you have questions. As discussed,after comparing revised plans(13-Oct)against review comments(Attached),we are close. Please provide revisions below to speed SWM-ESC plan approval: 1. Furnish notes,C8.0,C8.2, beneath `C' line storm profile, `E' line storm profile that read: "Detention system profile pipe length includes end sections. Hydrologic modeling(C12.0)does not include end sections." Words to that effect. Ref.7-Oct Engineering plan review comments: B.3.f.(i),and B.3.g.(i)—Attached. 2. Revise these sheets to show 3-line(as opposed to 4-line) rear detention system: L5.2,C11.1,C10.2,C13.0, C14.0,C16.0. 3. Ensure that C10.2 includes SWM underground detention system L x DIA dimensions for both 3-line detention systems(front/rear). 4. Delete extraneous line drawn across plan view of SWM Control MH-C3 (sheet C8.0). 5. Sheets C10.6 and C16.0—revise limits of disturbance(LOD),drain field,C16.0,so LOD is consistent between sheets. 6. Furnish whatever additional SWPPP documents you may have. I will ask Dr. Frye the same,via separate email. Note:With(future)Amended WPO Application: sheet C10.6—revise 0.3799 Ac. pavement to read 0.2041,Short Version BMP Computations,C10.6,to reflect credit for paved area runoff treated by Filterra units. Revision not required at this time. It is unusual to send comments by email, but 29-Oct,Dr. Frye, Pastor of FCCI,wrote to explain there is urgency. I appreciate all you have done. With revised plans-2 complete sets(All sheets),and 2 additional sets of sheets listed above-the SWMP and ESCP for FCCI will be approved the day I receive them. This is normally 1-2 days after ACCD receives plans downstairs. No fee with requested revisions, but please provide application form for tracking. No owner signature on application form,as revisions are clarifications,or corrections of a minor nature. Please be sure that every plan sheet is sealed. Feel free to speak with Dr. Frye,so that he is aware of review status. Please feel free to call if you have questions—I am available after 12. Thanks for your patience—safe travels. John E.Anderson,PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development I County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 • John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:38 AM To: 'Brian P. Smith' Cc: 'pastor @fccintl.org'; Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: FCCI: update Brian, A close estimate of installation expense will improve accuracy of WPO/SWM bond -please share estimate of expense of installation, if possible -thanks for your help with this. From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe @embarqmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:00 AM To: John Anderson Subject: Re: FCCI: update John, Good morning. Thank you for the heads up on the estimate. I will have this ready. Here is the manufacturer's certification letter that you asked for earlier. I can certainly ask him for labor costs but he's not in the business to install his products. He will probably just ask our contractor, Digs, Inc. We have been working with Digs since the conceptual plan. If you wish, I can ask Digs if they would share their costs. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: "John Anderson" <janderson2albemarle.orq> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe(a embargmail.com> Cc: pastor afccintl.org, "Glenn Brooks" <GBROOKSaalbemarle.org> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:08:12 PM Subject: RE: FCCI: update Brian, Once WP0201400070 is approved, it is imperative that FCCI request a WPO bond estimate immediately—there is a form and fee for this. If 3-and 4-line SWM underground detention systems are proprietary,a Mfr estimate of installed labor and material expense will help speed things,will help ensure a more accurate WPO bond estimate. Please help me if you can—we'll see you tomorrow. Thanks! John From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe@embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:27 AM To: pastor @fccintl.org Cc: Mark Keller; Rachel Falkenstein; John Anderson Subject: Re: FCCI: update Wayne, i • I spoke with Mark this morning. He will be at the meeting tomorrow to help resolve the county issue between the landscape note on the SUP and the mitigation requirements. Here's a refresher as I understand it. 1. BOS requirement: The area labeled "Re-planting Area"on the Conceptual Plan shall be replanted according to"Restoration/Establishment Table A" in Appendix D of the"Riparian Buffers Modification & Mitigation Manual," published by the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation's Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance program. This area shall be replanted with species listed in the brochure titled "Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau," published by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; 2. Mitigation requirement: CBLAD manual Here are the references for both for your perusing if you wish. http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:%5CTownHall%5Cdocroot%5CGuidanceDocs%5C4 40%5CGDoc DEQ_54 1 5_v 1.pdf http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/documents/pied natfilants.pdf I think I recognize the county's dilemma, but I need this verified. Table A is for a buffer disturbance of 1/4 acre or less and Table B is when one is over 1/4 acre. We have more than 1/4 acre of buffer disturbed. Both discuss the amount of plantings (which are the same) with Table B going into more detail as to where they are planted (first and second 50-feet of the buffer)with an option C to enter into a 5-year guarantee and select bare root seedlings or container grown seedlings. Mark states this option - Option C with the guarantee and the seedling option on L5.0. I have attached the concept plan for your reference. I plan to bring a copy of all of these items tomorrow and I might send a version of this email to Rachel and John today Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe @embarqmail.com From: pastorCa fccintl.org To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspeaembargmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:52:31 AM Subject: RE: FCCI: update Brian, Good morning! Looks good to me. I cannot think of anything else at this point. Also, I am available to meet with John tomorrow at 10 AM. Thanks! Wayne Frye Original Message Subject: FCCI: update From: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe@aembargmail.com> Date: Fri, September 19, 2014 3:58 pm To: Wayne Frye <pastor(afccintl.org> 2 Wayne, Here's an update going into the weekend. I think I have addressed everything on John's list except the following which I will attack on Monday. Let me know if you think of something I left out. 1. SWPPP report 2. Date all revised sheets 3. Revise the number of sheets note on the first page 4. Mitigation revisions - pending until Tuesday's meeting 5. Level spreaders on through drainage lines -pending until Tuesday's meeting Thanks and make it a great weekend! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe @embargmail.com 3 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:44 AM To: 'Brian P. Smith' Cc: Rachel Falkenstein; Glenn Brooks; 'pastor @fccintl.org' Subject: RE: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes Brian, We must get revisions right. I spoke with Rachel regarding overlapping WPO (Mitigation)—ARB (special permit) planting requirements that email cannot easily clarify. Are you free to visit with Rachel and me Sep-23,Tue, 10am? We can meet for 30min, reach an understanding. Email is a poor vehicle, at this point. Revised plans must reflect WPO- ARB/Planning planting requirements. I feel it's critical. Can you make it? Thanks, John From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe @embarqmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:26 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein Cc: Wayne Frye; Mark Keller; John Anderson Subject: Re: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes Rachel, The steeper slopes are behind the retaining walls and the building and Mark will make sure we follow the landscape ordinance and the note of special landscaping during the SUP process. Thanks! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe(&,,emb argmail.com From: "Rachel Falkenstein" <rfalkensteinalbemarle.orq> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe(o�embargmail.com> Cc: "Wayne Frye" <pastor(a�fccintl.orq>, "Mark Keller" <mkeller @terraconcebtspc.com>, "John Anderson" <ianderson2(a�albemarle.org> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:20:01 AM Subject: RE: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes Can you specify where on the site these 2:1 slopes are? I do not have a copy of the WPO plan,just looking off initial site plan. The only requirements I would have outside of the "replanting area" would be landscaping and screening requirements outlined in section 32.7.9 and any additional landscaping required by ARB. From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe @embarqmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:04 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein Nose Cc: Wayne Frye; Mark Keller; John Anon Subject: Re: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes Thanks Rachel. I think this front area is all 3 to 1. I think John was wondering if you had any planting requirements for the steeper 2 to 1 slopes. The Design Manual doesn't specify which plants,but the Erosion Control Manual does with a crownvetch mixture that one doesn't mow. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434)296-3644 (c) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: "Rachel Falkenstein" <Falkenstein @albemarle.orq> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe@embargmail.com>, "John Anderson" <janderson2(a albemarle.orq> Cc: "Wayne Frye" <pastor(a�fccintl.orq>, "Mark Keller" <mkeller @terraconceptspc.com> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:34:29 AM Subject: RE: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes I am not sure what area of the plan you are referring to with these plantings.Just keep in mind that the area labeled "replanting area" must be planted with species listed in Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping: Piedmont Plateau per the conditions of the Special Use Permit. Rachel Falkenstein,AICP Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development ph:434.296.5832 ext 3272 From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe(aembargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:59 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Rachel Falkenstein; Wayne Frye Subject: Fwd: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes John, Here's what our landscape architects says. He is so right. Every product has a downside. Personally, I like the recommendation in the erosion control manual that the state and vdot supports. It has a track record- otherwise it would be removed from the manual. And I already have it on the plans! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: "Mark Keller" <mkeller @terraconceptspc.com> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe @embargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:39:56 AM Subject: RE: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes 2 ,Creeping Phlox or Blue Rug Juniper w`Md be good choices that spread rather quic i, require minimal maintenance and do not compete with other landscaping. The Phlox is considered a perennial and is sold in small pots and maybe flats, whereas juniper are typically sold a shrubs, even though you can get them in small format(which I would recommend— smaller...more numerous plants for the same$). One could go on and on about groundcover choices, but many have a serious down side like, not being drought-tolerant, being invasive, being non-native, requiring good soil or lots of water, not spreading fast enough...the list goes on. If you can provide some degree of topsoil, some mulch and some fine landscape netting over the mulch to hold it in place, then either of these two planted into this prepared setting should do OK given normal rainfall. From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe@ embargmail.com] Sent:Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:54 AM To: Mark Keller Subject: FCCI: ground cover on steep slopes Mark, Good morning. Do you have a ground cover recommendation for slopes greater than 3 to 1? The county wants me to specify one on the E & S plan. Here is a statement from the county's Design Manual. 2. For grass stabilization on constructed slopes, the maximum steepness is 3:1. Slopes steeper than 3:1 must be permanently stabilized with landscaping vegetation hardier than grass, which will not require mowing. Thanks! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe(a,embargmail.com 3 John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:03 AM To: 'Brian P. Smith'; Rachel Falkenstein Cc: Glenn Brooks Subject: RE: FCCI: a few quick questions Brian, blue text, below Rachel, I mention your name, Item 4. If able to help,thanks! You may advise on#1, as well. From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspeembargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:17 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Wayne Frye Subject: FCCI: a few quick questions I John, Good morning! 1. Do you want TP (tree protection) located just inside the limits of disturbance line in all areas, including the septic fields?—you want to be mindful of tree conservation agreements, if they exist, with Planning or as condition of special permit, and provide accordingly—I don't have a straight answer. TP is a control for helping to protect trees that should be preserved. 2. In some locations, on the low side of the project, I call for SF. Can I run the TP to the SF and start up on the other end of the SF or do you want TP and SF to double up and run parallel to each other? Yes—TP, SF, TP. No need to double up. VESCH detail for one type (option) of TP looks very much like SF. 3. In some locations, also on the low side of the project, there is an existing open area between the limits of disturbance line and the woods line. Here we specify a DD. Same question. Do you want run the TP to the DD and start up on the other end of the DD or do you want TP and DD to double up and run parallel to each other? In this case, SF is best: it mimics visual cues of TP, is nearly equivalent to TP. If install SF parallel (downslope of) DD where trees must be protected, there is further assurance of ESC should DD fail. 4. The lower right corner of C10.5 specifies a mixture for slopes steeper than 3 to 1. It's from the E & S manual and I think VDOT uses this too. I thought you might have missed this. Is this acceptable? -slopes steeper than 3:1 require cover hardier than grass (ACDSM -8.A.2.). I noticed Plains Lovegrass on prelim site plan. Is this hardier than grass? What can you tell me about it? If equivalent to grass species that require mowing, then no, it won't work. I'm not well-versed in landscape issues, but feel there is an approved landscape planting list for Albemarle—can you check with Rachel? She may be aware of typology of Plains Lovegrass. Mass planting ground cover (juniper species, for example) would work. Thanks! Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe @embargmail.com 1 Nape THE MOST NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS' Lilt LV September 18, 2014 Brian P.Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy,VA 22974-3012 RE: Faith Christian Center International Brian, Thank you for affording Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (ADS) the opportunity to be considered as the stormwater management system for the Faith Christian Center International. ADS has reviewed the proposed use of our product per drawing(s) C4.0, 4.1, 4.2,8.0, 8.1 &8.2 dated May 6, 20124 and marked Preliminary Not for Construction. Based upon these plans, the proposed use of our N-12 AASHTO M294 pipe falls within the capacity and capability in which the product was designed to function. As a material supplier, ADS does not install chambers or provide on-site inspectors for projects. However, it is important that this system be installed in accordance with commonly accepted installation practices such as ASTM D2321 or the ADS Storm Installation Guide (attached). If desired, ADS will participate in the preconstruction meeting to review these recommended installation practices with the contractor. We appreciate your engineering insight and design detailing the use ADS N-12 pipe on this project. Best, azeIZ:4/ Chuck T. Lacey, Jr. PE Engineering Product Manager 301.875.8535 ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 4640 TRUEMAN BOULEVARD, HILLIARD, OH 43026 TEL: 614 / 658-0050 800 / 733-7473 HTTP://WWW.ADS-PIPE.COM John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:32 PM To: 'pastor @fccintl.org' Cc: Glenn Brooks; 'Brian P. Smith' Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201400070 Faith Christian Center International. Dr. Frye, Thanks for speaking with me yesterday, and today. BLUE text is response to your email—please call if any questions. Regarding Section A,#1b; I now understand that we should print this 22 page document and attach it to the completed 58 page SWPPP Template. There is no information that we will need to complete. This is correct. -Regarding Section B,#8; Scaled drawings are not required at this time but may be upon approval and prior to field inspection. For approval purposes,you will use the supplied cut sheets. This is nearly correct. Single-view scaled drawings of each detention system will be required at a later time. ACCD anticipates FCCI request to revise WPO plan to accommodate ACF&R design needs. -Regarding Section B,#'s 21,22,23,24& 25; all are site plan related and can be taken care of during final site plan submittal. These items will not be included in the updated plans.This is essentially correct, except we ask that contours between FCCI property line and Shadwell Creek(#24)be shown on any plan that proposes to amend the approved WPO (currently under review). Further, it is right to say that#21, 22, 23, and 25 relate to the final site plan. VSMP plan sheets that provide details of retaining walls may be revised later,with the understanding that requested revisions will be included and shown on the final site plan. Since changes will not be made to sheets S1, S2, S3 at this time and since comments document request for change,you may remove plan sheets S 1, S2, S3 from VSMP-WP0201400070 plans for the moment. They do not need to be included at this time, but(similar to above)we request that any plan proposing to amend the approved WPO(currently under review) include sheets S 1, S2, S3 (and additional sheets if necessary) so that Engineering can evaluate placement of inlets and storm pipes relative to walls. Engineering inspectors need this information as well. -Regarding Section C,#7; Easements will not be required as there is no property between ours and Shadwell Creek. Our property line to the East is Shadwell Creek. —See response to next item. (As discussed earlier today, conservation easements are required for any mitigation plantings that fall outside the stream buffer—that is, more than 100-ft from Shadwell Creek [last item, below]). -Regarding Section C,#7;you are to follow up with the County Engineer to discuss the "pipe outfall flow rate" as you thought Brian's numbers may be adequate seeing that 0.0-0.5 fps flow rate is almost impossible to obtain in real world situations. Outlet Protection Design Table, C8.1, provides 10-ft L Class 1 riprap aprons for outfalls Al, BI, Cl, D1, El, and entrance culvert. Using VESCH Plate 3.18-3, and considering minimal distance between FCCI property line(PL)and Shadwell Creek(stream bank)at points below outfalls Al, B1, Cl, and D1 (3', 0', 10', 4'; C10.4, C10.3,C10.2), no additional riprap or ESC measure is required at these 4 locations. Private drainage easements are not required provided level spreaders(VESCH, STD&SPEC 3.21 )are installed downstream of riprap aprons at outfalls E1 and F1 (ref. VESCH for design specifications). Distances between points on FCCI PL(below outfalls El and Fl)and stream bank are 85' and 80'. These distances are on adjacent property(ref. GIS image below), but with level spreaders and aprons,velocities should be reduced enough to avoid need for private drainage easements. -Regarding Section D,#2; you are to follow up with the County Engineer to clarify the statement "recordation of a permanent maintenance agreement and escrow to run with the land". In a another meeting,Margaret M. of ARB instructed Mark Keller and me to leave out any comments regarding maintenance agreements on the plans because there is an understanding that the property owner must maintain plantings indefinitely. I will respond with answer to ques. of escrow as soon as possible. As for easements:easements for plantings are required if mitigation plantings fall outside stream buffers—that is,>100-ft from Shadwell Creek. If FCCI proposes to mitigate stream buffer impact by planting within hatched areas shown on C14.0,that accounts for 40,912 sf of mitigation; 40,192sf will remain. Plantings within buffers do not require conservation easements since these areas are protected as stream buffer. FCCI may propose additional areas for plantings; for example, steep slopes between church and buffer boundary, but excluding upslope of entrance drive and retaining walls as these areas are too distant to serve as effective stream buffers. Also, should eligible areas outside the buffer boundary not total 40,912sf,then a proposal to install Filterra units sized to receive runoff at inlets A3 and B3,together with proposal to plant maximal slope areas between church and buffer,together with commitment to 1 plant hatched impact area,will be an acceptable Mitigation Plan. Note: plantings on steep slopes must be maximized to approach as nearly as possible 2:1 mitigation requirement. A3 and B3 are reported to receive more runoff than A2 and B2 (ref. inlet design computations; email Attachment sent 9/4/2014 4:28 PM). A3 — 1.056 CFS. A2—0.216 CFS B3 —2.364 CFS. B2—0.432 CFS Stream buffer impact(hatched)Area is only lightly planted at present. GIS 2013 aerial image, below- We want to avoid"rounds"of comments, and may be able to get this done with a single revision. When revised plans are submitted,if further revision is required(and if possible), I will ask(via phone or email) for select changes to specific sheets. I cannot promise there will be no comments, but we can handle request for further revision as expeditiously as possible. I appreciate your help and support, Dr. Frye- John E.Anderson,PE Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development l County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road l Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 Albemarle County GIS,Tax Map information 2 ~ ____ .� . ~~~_ .11111111111111111:.., , 2116 rdililir 78-5wc 78-44A 2132 78-47A 78-37 78-49 if ill 78-48 /7 /y mw ,/ - ' '-, r'' /� � ������ "`=. � '`- � 79-7A ' ~, .. ' - -'~_ - -`-_ ..„~~— �+ —~� Albemarle County GIS 2013 Aerial image .. �_ � b , r 44 - Y .......„.] . - ,� Y , t } �� 4.-i . ' 44 4 6. "VP"- '\V''''' \ $ — • V fi, \ f } i 'V g. I ;..* 4,,V •, a fy° A . / �.,It - , ,t , a ' , .0*. s - /..',i4ii,4, et O 3SB ,4,T' s._ ",A it tr. 4-:11111., I 22 38 lit.�t So �iQ4s _-- J 150 ft j st ~- ~ s "f .. .. 1 ,A. . 1 nor y. :. 1 Y _ , From: pastor @fccintl.org [mailto:pastor @fccintl.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:45 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Brian Smith Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WPO201400070 Faith Christian Center International. John, Good morning! No problem. I appreciated the opportunity to speak with you yesterday. I just wanted to recap our conversation via email to ensure that I did not overlook something. Let me know if what I have listed is accurate. 4 - Regarding Section A, #1b; I now understand that we should print this 22 page document and attach it to the completed 58 page SWPPP Template. There is no information that we will need to complete. - Regarding Section B, #8; Scaled drawings are not required at this time but may be upon approval and prior to field inspection. For approval purposes, you will use the supplied cut sheets. - Regarding Section B, #'s 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25; all are site plan related and can be taken care of during final site plan submittal. These items will not be included in the updated plans. - Regarding Section C, #7; Easements will not be required as there is no property between ours and Shadwell Creek. Our property line to the East is Shadwell Creek. - Regarding Section C, #7; you are to follow up with the County Engineer to discuss the "pipe outfall flow rate" as you thought Brian's numbers may be adequate seeing that 0.0 - 0.5 fps flow rate is almost impossible to obtain in real world situations. - Regarding Section D, #2; you are to follow up with the County Engineer to clarify the statement "recordation of a permanent maintenance agreement and escrow to run with the land". In a another meeting, Margaret M. of ARB instructed Mark Keller and me to leave out any comments regarding maintenance agreements on the plans because there is an understanding that the property owner must maintain plantings indefinitely. Lastly, I appreciate your willingness to check the revised plans and forward to Mr. Shifflett as soon as they arrive at your office. I will be coordinating with Brian today to inform him that these comments are complete and he should not expect "rounds" of comments going forward. However, I will inform him that if you need anything, that you will request it from him via phone. Thanks for all of your help! Dr. Frye Original Message Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201400070 Faith Christian Center International. From: John Anderson <janderson2Caalbemarle.org> Date: Mon, September 15, 2014 5:33 pm To: "pastor©fccintl.org" <oastor(Wccintl.org> Thank you for your help and patience, Dr. Frye From: pastor@fccintl.orq [mailto:pastor@fccintl.orq] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:12 PM To: John Anderson Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WP0201400070 Faith Christian Center International. Yes, 5 PM will work. 434-531-2116. Thanks! Dr. Frye 5 Original Message Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WPO201400070 Faith Christian Center International. From: John Anderson <janderson2(aalbemarle.org> Date: Mon, September 15, 2014 3:07 pm To: "pastor(@fccintl.orq" <pastor(a fccintl.org> I must meet a 4:30 deadline, but can call around 5 if that suits—your tel? From: pastor(a fccintl.orq [mailto:pastor(a fccintl.orq] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 3:06 PM To: John Anderson Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WPO201400070 Faith Christian Center International. John, Good afternoon! Is there any time sooner than Thursday that you can discuss. I would like to keep Brian Smith working on your comments so it would be just you and me unless you would like other staff to be involved. Again, I am available to speak with you via phone. Please advise. Dr. Frye Original Message Subject: RE: Planning Application Review for WPO201400070 Faith Christian Center International. From: John Anderson <janderson2((caalbemarle.orq> Date: Mon, September 15, 2014 11:11 am To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspe(&embargmail.com> Cc: Glenn Brooks <GBROOKS(&albemarle.org>, "pastor(@fccintl.orq" <pastor@ fccintl.org> Brian, Do you remember we discussed how runoff could carry past the 6" block wall within control manholes? Runoff from paved areas should be detained, but with outlet control located within C3 and E2, whether runoff is detained or not depends on location of DI above the manhole. This is why we discussed moving the 6" block wall closer to the 18" outfall pipe. Remember? Would you like to meet this Thursday to discuss? 2-4pm meeting times are free. Thanks From: Brian P. Smith [mailto:bpspe@embargmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 10:49 AM To: John Anderson Cc: Glenn Brooks; Wayne Frye Subject: Re: Planning Application Review for WPO201400070 Faith Christian Center International. 6 • John, Question. I can't figure out why you want the DI-3A's shown on the SWD control manhole details. Would you be kind enough to explain? This is my typical detail that I have used in the past and it has received many approvals. I'm thinking you will have another comment when this is shown. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: "John Anderson" <janderson2(c�albemarle.org> To: "Brian P. Smith" <bpspeembarqmail.com> Cc: "Glenn Brooks" <GBROOKS(a�albemarle.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 4:51:42 PM Subject: Planning Application Review for WPO201400070 Faith Christian Center International. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number=WP0201400070 Reviewer=John Anderson Review Status= Requested Changes Completed Date=09/09/2014 Thanks for your patience- comments in County View database system 7 rr =r.v BRIAN P . SMITH , PE CIVIL ENGINEERING , INC . 4835 THREE CHOPT ROAD, TROY, VA 22974-3012 434 . 296 . 3644 ( c ) bpspe (c� embargmail . coln MEMORANDUM To: John Anderson From: Brian P. Smith, President Date: August 22, 2014 Re: VSMP n Urgent VI For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply n As Requested John, As discussed please find attached two sets of revised WPO/VSMP plans dated August 22, 2014 (R). I believe I have addressed all of the preliminary items from our meeting on August 21, 2014 and your earlier emails. The SWPPP comments are addressed in the report and not on the plan sheets. They included with this memo and could be stabled to the sheets if you like. Either way, they are intended to be part of the field set for all concerned during construction. The retaining wall sheets and calculations are included as requested. You had a comment on the headwater calculation for the 24"RCP entrance pipe. I rechecked the nomograph,the shoulder elevation and the computations and found them to be correct, or at least the way I have done them for a very long time. However,please let me know if I am missing something. Please contact me if you have any questions. Brian Account ID:06-012-07/John Anderson I GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING John Anderson From: John Anderson Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:04 PM To: 'pastor @fccintl.org'; 'Brian P. Smith' Cc: Glenn Brooks; Rachel Falkenstein; Max Greene;Todd Shifflett Subject: Faith Christian Center-VSMP Application-review/site grading [WP0201400070] Attachments: paved wash rack-ACDSM-082014.pdf Dr. Frye—it's nice to hear from you It would be very helpful if Brian could meet with us tomorrow at 3:30-4pm. You are welcome to attend. I cannot stop reviewing other work, but understand the urgency. I think tomorrow will be helpful -if not critical. Could you visit with us? My hope is to receive revised plans within a few days of meeting. I must review revised sheets, not 13-Aug plan sheets. Revisions are required. Prelim items: 1. Storm drain lines exceed 16%,one is 32.9%in a fill section. This is problematic. 2. With elimination of playground, D.A.and increased paved areas may affect Filterra unit size (if runoff increases, which happens if paved area increases). 3. 'F' line storm profile will not work with geogrid (F5—F4, keep shallow). 4. Remove site plan sheets, entrance profile;they cannot be approved as part of VSMP application. 5. Detailed retaining wall design. We cannot approve VSMP (or grading permit)without approved retaining wall design. Retaining walls supports parking—detailed plans highest priority. 6. 'D' line storm profile/C8.1—sequence of construction, elevation (must be lower, beneath detention system. Also: ref item#1). 7. Stream buffer Mitigation plan; revise as necessary to reflect 13-Aug site plan revision. 8. Paved construction entrance with wash rack, Rte. 250—include detail/Attached. 9. SWPPP—provide fuel storage spill containment, if on-site fuel storage. 10. SWPPP—provide porta-John location,with berm or SF containment. 11. SWPPP—provide concrete wash-out area draining to sediment trap. 12. Apply for 2014 General VSMP Permit coverage—have confirmed ACCD has received $1700 fee. [VSMP link: http://www.albemarle.org/navpages.asp?info=release&ID=17545] I have questions relative to VDH approval of on-site septic, how(if)grading permit is contingent upon VDH approval. Unrelated to VSMP, I'll check with VDOT re. pavement design (ADT= 685). I hope to catch as many items as possible with revisions. I will put us down, 3:30,tentatively, and hope you are free to attend. Thank you for writing John Brian,with change to site plan (13Aug),VSMP (ESC/SWM) review must address revised design. Are you free to meet with us tomorrow at 3:30? County office building/COB, room A, 3:30-4pm Thank you! John E. Anderson, PE I Civil Engineer II Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3069 1 Ni.r .urn' From: pastor @fccintl.org [mailto:pastor @fccintl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:53 AM To: John Anderson Subject: [FWD: RE: SDP 201400038 FCCI - Retaining Wall] Mr. Anderson, Good morning! With regards to the changes being made to the rear parking lot of our site plan to accommodate Fire/Rescue and life safety, are you able to complete the early grading permit approval using the submittal you already have or would we need to update the submittal with the changes? My question stems from the desire to keep this project on schedule as we have a site work contractor "holding a spot" for us as we await a early grading permit. Please advise. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Brian Smith or me. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it. Dr. Wayne Frye Faith Christian Center International Original Message Subject: RE: SDP 201400038 FCCI - Retaining Wall From: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkensteinCa�albemarle.ora> Date: Wed, August 20, 2014 9:06 am To: "pastor fccintl.orci" <pastorCa fccintl.orq> Cc: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org> Dr. Frye, I was able to talk with John Anderson yesterday regarding the new proposed parking lot design and he did not feel that the change would be an issue for the mitigation of the stream buffer.As before,you will need to mitigate any impacts to the stream buffer at a 2:1 ratio.You may need to revise the WPO based on the impacts of the new retaining wall. Impacts need to be considered such as disturbances to the buffer during construction of the wall and tree canopy that may be lost. I encourage you to work with John if you have any further questions about the mitigation plan, but from my end you are OK to move forward with final site plan using this design. Thanks. Rachel From: pastor(aifccintl.orq [mailto:oastor@fccintl.orq] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:17 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein Subject: RE: SDP 201400038 FCCI - Retaining Wall Rachel, 2 Good morning! Our meeting with ARB went well yesterday and we were granted a Certificate of Appropriateness based upon meeting some conditions. With that said, as soon as you can get a response from John Anderson regarding a portion of the retaining wall being in the stream buffer would be helpful. We need that information to finalize excavation in order to stay on schedule. Thanks for expediting this matter. Also, I have asked Mark Keller, our Landscape Architect to contact you regarding the Mitigation Plan for the stream buffer. It was mentioned yesterday during the ARB meeting that we should have a discussion so expect his call. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Dr. Frye 3 N'3 Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia 3 se, (Faith Christian Center International) fQ m� WN lA 725870 725930 725990 726050 726110 726170 38°1'13'N 380 1'13"N r. ° .r '. ' '\ N u •-• • o N .✓ P �C �,� .I* 1�, ? ` # ' -,./.442:,;.: � ' N T $Y v x a R rfi Pd 3A", Cp Y 1. ' ! . of Y. �O x ( p N - ',. t - - y y Cxti FF� .1- ∎ x A .101*. r 1 - . ,t-, ~ - kftv ; - .. ‘',. ' ,'14:i , i e \ ri �} r .,r, cv ,.Rrchno, dRa S v 38°0 57'N 725870 725930 725990 726050 726110 726170 3 3 Map So le: •1:2, Meters 330 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. m N 0 30 60 120 180 N0 100 200 400 600 Map Projection:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge •tics:UTM Zone 17N WGS84 V' co O a) N o O v O O O o a0 C - O a) N O a= N a) c0 O O N m U ca O ▪ N L O) N• N ca > ` N U I O N V' a as m o m v ° a) m m p 3 c O ii; Qil'6 m N N [a N a E m N O N O 2 ` Lo a) a) U Co U) m E E N a m N N .m C a0 .L... O cO m .L] O Q m• mD m � a) � >,M c nN ' U E - E 2 wLw Cl) c - L a) a) 0 of m CO -6 p o E 0 m E m 6 4) N N ,t -O rn N L N < 3 w o 0) E o n c � a a°i � m ° a) z w Uom Q ° ° L rZ 0 � a a) E E U:N w m � � 0 a �� 0 C N m c < if co n Co L N 00 L C a L (1) C 0 n C Cl) a) N -6 N E m U a)9 ° d) o u) p ID a3 m O O Q -Q Irs °>, > _c oL 3 a) 0 3 >. m ° (° -0 0 m o• m Q. a) c a) a) c ' m 3 a o E ? m m N _ L LL °� a ° .� N L° ° a�'i o .o a) E ° N n C O N n ° m E Z 0 ° N N - 7 co cN U p Co a) 0 a) Co m 0 co ca N S] a) Co �- o a a) c c CO L- CO a) v) a) a) -0 E a) m o N m CL E• >. n ) Ts a) N oaZi ° °° a°i a�iaoi s ° 3 � n � Q U m co cc) Co Co -) v) N a C C m N Q > L as N L C .a) N E E Co > N Cl) L m f/) fn m N co Co• 8.m N 0C a) � rn m a>i - ° 'o .c 13 oc m Z >.. COL m Co o N m a) 0 m o 0 CO o 'a r 3 -o 0 Q m N o Q n w v) a) ;� � C) 2• C v) a) Cc y0C = o a) °) C a`) 0. Co . -a O) E m a) 1-,,- 'o c 0 O U as) .O o .N < °- ) m L N O•u)• 'C o N N N ` U) -6 N C j O- j (n N E N o a a, a) Co U N co m O 1] O n•°) w° a) o _N - ? - Co a) 0) L CO O .N ca Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia loos, Faith Christian Center International Map Unit Legend Albemarle County,Virginia(VA003) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO1 23C Davidson clay loam,7 to 15 0.7 7.2% percent slopes 71 C Rabun clay loam,7 to 15 0.5 5.9% percent slopes 71D Rabun clay slopes 15 to 25 7.6 82.5%1 83 Toccoa fine sandy loam 0.4 4.4% Totals for Area of Interest 9.2 100.0% USDA, Natural Resources , Web Soil Survey 4/22/2014 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Brian Smith Brian P. Smith,PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Copt Rd Troy, VA 22974 errs April 15, 2014 A Growing Idea in Stonnwater filtration Plan Review of Filterra® Faith Christian Center International, Albemarle, VA Dear Sirs Thank you for submitting the plans on 15 April 2014 for our review of the Faith Christian Center International project. Filterra®structures 1 (8x4), 2(6x4), 3 (6x4),4(6x4), 5 (10x6), 6 (4x8), 7 (4x6), and 8 (6x8)were studied for; • Planned Filterra®box size •Filterra® contributing drainage area meeting project's regional sizing specification •Filterra® invert elevations are higher than effluent invert elevations • The bypass is lower than the Filterra® elevation(spot elevations) • The grading pattern encourages cross linear flow and not head-on flow • The Filterra® outlet drain pipe is sized correctly and exits perpendicular to the wall •For any conflicting structures such as storm drain pipes below Filterra® •For most efficient placement of Filterra®units The plan review concluded that the Filterra® structures listed above is sited and sized appropriately to treat stormwater to our published specifications. Operational consistency with these specifications is contingent upon the stormwater unit being installed correctly and according to the plans, as well as regular maintenance being performed. Installation Help documents will be forwarded to the Buyer at time of order. The Filterra®Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual will be made available upon request. Yours sincerely 0,k IL- Drew Quinn Engineering Support Services FilterraiD Bioretention Systems Manufactured by Americast T:(804)798-6068 A M E R I CAST 11352 Virginia Precast Road F: (804)798-8400 not just concrete.concrete solutions. Ashland,VA 23005 E:design @filterra.com www.filterra.com N E ; C Noe' `oe 0 a C s O > X ,--f +-+ _ Q O C aJ N > a) L (ifj U LJ O Q ' O � N N O O L (0 i a A ,,-1 ,� �- ref O%E oN a) - t V c v - LC; CO cil ,-i • cn N VI CD 0 >L �O A Q co N N O :^ : V o a, co O a3 U L C "0 CO a v 413▪O a1 N ca c0 o C O.2 , co 'O p -0 C fl. C V Q O � a1 0 O a1 • T Q co a) .- co N N N aJ > c° L O a) = VI _� �a- ❑. C▪ O O O O a� L O = f0 V-- a-+ a) N ® i1 N O c C co f° to a) fa L a) Q) L U Q. a) OA Q 4O ±+ CO L g f0 co II C vi a A w 3 '� a) a) 3. ' E .L a1 'O C — ? O U 2 0 _c N gi U L N �, N U — 4. O Q C f++0 N (U f0 +, O L E LL of OA .O C (o 4., = O Co O (13++ O. .Q � (a E O N 0 4— y a_ 0 a) = U s c U 4- d' O fo OU Q. m uCA p �cXD Q CO L.- k1D -CI (00▪ " av+ O > oo V C3 E. c° O s_ C co i O 0 a, 4- — © 14= CD 1•- o ° +� 0- N ® v (D C *-'1 U u1 to Q V1 fo V C .. —_ ® u c° C >L. C . 0 ,� •� (0 'L a) O N N QJ E ++ C N _ N II ... 0 ri ! �V (O CO E a -a _a C t0 -0 tz C L OO O CO O a in CU 0 CU O' I a) co '^ ra 'v I--I L L L E L i N U 0 0 fo U f° a) L Q �_ j � LL a jl C C Vf z .■ ■. i Q to — 0 -2 a J . • C 0 f0 L D . +., C cn C ` ~ �G C C} Ch X l0 Co O E - L ,rt c C 0 0 wz X X X X b X X X C - E 0 i U Y. . ,to f° )' L Q1 00 l0 lO l0 ri �t l0 CO fo 'a "0 4e U c c a /w u i (n m I— Q 4 > ,-i N m Cr; lO N 00 < H- co r 4.c) Y A q N r F Cf. NNire Noe U • • Y.� Cl. v N jifl ! t•a 6) ; .1 0 3 tc4,3 v7. I 'i Z CO•Z ® C s �� � y C �()� C y0p i m a �Q 4 Z C, *V) fA Q k to f N CL Short Version BMP Computations Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance: Modified Simple Method Plan: Faith Christian Center International Water Resources Area Other rural areas Preparer: Brian P. Smith, PE Date: 17-Jun-13 Project Drainage Area Designation The entire lot L storm pollutant export in pounds, L=[P(Pj)Rv/12][C(A)2.72] Rv mean runoff coefficient, Rv=0.05+0.009(1) Pj small storm correction factor, 0.9 I percent imperviousness P annual precipitation,43"in Albemarle A project area in acres in subject drainage area, A= 9.48 C pollutant concentration, mg/I or ppm target phosphorus f factor applied to RR ✓ required treatment volume in cy,0.5"over imperv.area= A(I)43560(0.5/12)/27 RR required removal, L(post)-f x L(pre) %RR removal efficiency, RR100/L(post) Impervious Cover Computation(values in feet&square feet) Item pre-development Area post-development Roads Length Width subtotal Area Length Width subtotal 0 0 16487 Septic access o 0 3404 1 0_ 0 0 Well access o 0 1864 ® i 0 0 0 0 w_ 0 16487 0 5268 Sidewalks Length Width no. subtotal Length Width no subtotal 1 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0,� .. 0 0 00 0 0 8669 1 __ 0 0 0 0 0 8669 Parking Lots 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I 0 Gravel areas Area 3947 0 0 62875 62875 Area i 2914 x0.70= 4802.7 x0.70= Structures Area no. subtotal 1 0 i Area no. subtotal 2561 1 2561 18875 1 18875 653 19 12407 1 0 0 0 1947 1 1947 16915 , 0 18875 Actively-grazed pasture& Area yards and cultivated turf 1 0 x 0.08= O1 Area Active crop land Area 0 x 0.08= 0 Area x 0.25= 0 x 0.25= 0 Other Impervious Areas _ concrete pads 78 Retaining walls 1150 Impervious Cover 9% I(pre) 23% Rv(post) V l(post) 0.26 149.4 New Development(For Development Areas,existing impervious cover<=20%) C f I(pre)* Rv(pre) L(pre) L(post) RR %RR Area Type 0.70 1.00 20% 0.23 13.39 15.19 1.80 0.35 1.00 0% 0.13 3.88 7.60 3.71 „' , 12% Development Area 0.40 1.00 1% 0.13 4.44 49% Drinking Water Watersheds ° 8.68 4.24 49% Other Rural Land *min.values Redevelopment(For Development Areas,existing impervious cover>20%) C f I(pre)* Rv(pre) L(pre) L(post) RR %RR Area Type 0.70 0.90 20% 0.23 13.39 15.19 3.14 0.35 0.85 21% Development Area 0% 0.13 3.88 7.60 4.30 57% Drinking Water Watersheds 0.40 0.85 1% 0.13 4.44 8.68 4.91 57% Other Rural Land