HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400023 Study 2003-02-04Faulconer Construction
Office & Shop
Preliminary Site Plan As Reviewed on February 4, 2003
CRITICAL SLOPE ANALYSIS
TOTAL AREA OF CRITICAL SLOPES
RGA
Total acreage of critical slopes = 3.78 acres.
C F,11-i11CCr__s_ ort
Total acreage ol'critical slopes -::: 4.4
CRITICAL SLOPE DEVELOPMENT FOR STREAM CROSSING
RGA
Total acreage of critical slope development for stream crossing = 0.50 acres
Cotxnt "s Report
Total acreage ol'critical slope dcvcloptiicnt for stream crossing 0.6 acres
CRITICAL SLOPE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT
RGA
Total acreage of critical slopes disturbed for the entire project = 1.14 acres
COL111tV F. nwiiieer's Report
Total acreage of critical slopes disairbed for the ciAirc project 1.53 acres
09/14/2H04 12:25 4J4y :yjrtDy vliui , "uL— e-
INM- OFFICF AfE.tf0RAA
CULPE.PER DISTRICT TRAFFICENG.INETRX,INC .. >
TO: Teresa Sutler Culpeper, Virginia.
FROM: Paul C. Balderson, Jr.September 9, 2004
SUBJECT- Safety /Operational Review
Route 250 @ Route 676 (Tilman Road)
Albemarle County
A review of the above ,referenced. intersection has been completed as requested by the
Charlottesville Residency Office. A recent fatal accident has intensified concerns .for
safety at t1•us Location.
Our review consisted of the following elements:
Traffic &anal Analysis: on June 16, 2004 members of the traffic engineering staff
conducted a 12 -hour turning movement count at tbis
location. Tbat information was then analyzed using
guidelines provided in the MUTCD. Three warrant
were used it this analysis, none of the requirements set forth
in the document were satisfied. Low side road traffic
volumes and an absence of accidents that might be corrected
by signalization account for the failure to meet ally of the
warrant requirements (see copy of signal analysis under
Appendix "A7).
Sneed Analysis: on June 7 and S, 2004 speed m.oti toriz).g stations were
established in the east and westbound lanes of Route 250
to monitor vehicular speeds approaching tlje i.ztersection.
85 %tile speeds were found to be 56 and 59NDH in the east
and west bound lanes respectively, 50' percentile speeds
were recorded within the 50 to 54MPH range for each lane.
Of the almost 11,000 total vehicles documented in our study
the range in which the greatest number of vehicles was
recorded was the 50 to 54MPH category.
wo,-A e. 4- ceq a e a ti Jpt- tsi``tt -Q, `'1n5 b 4 -. L'.6 tic
Fes, t i i vY't t 1 C ikC -
09; 12:25 434J PJJ «y VL)U I
Pagc 2,
Safety /Operational Study
Route 250 @ Route 676
Affirmarle County
Accident Analy;Fis: accident information was obtained via HTRIS for a 57
month period -- August 1999 through May 2004. Within this
timefraline a total of twenty -seven (27) accidents were
recorded. Thirteen (1.3) of these were rear end collisions
48 %). Next were angle and fixed object off road collisions
5 ea. representing 18.5 % ca.), followed by collision.
with a deer (2 at 7.4 % ea.) and sideswipe (same and
opposite direction - 1 each at 7.4 % ea.). There were 1, 9
property damage only accidents, 7 injury accidents and 1
fatality (a detailed, summary of accident information at)d a.
collision diagram have been provided under Appendix "B ").
S:gfit Distance ,review: sight distance was measured on Route 676 at the
intersection from both the north and south approach stopped
posibojas, The results were recorded as follows:
approaching from the north at the stopped position — 11.70
and 1.500 feet on the cast and westbound approaches
respectively. Looking eastward from this position there is a
vertical rise ca-eating a moderate dip or sag area on the far .
side, and right breaking horizontal curve beyond, However,
approacIdng traffic is never hidden by these characteristics
within the line of sight available to the motorist,
Approaching Route 250 frorra, the south at the stopped
position.— 488 and 465 feet respectively on the cast and
westbound approaches of Route 250. Additional sight
distance is obstructed by horizontal and vertical roadway
curvature, guardrail and a tree Iine (see sketches under,
Appendix "C ").
Sign ,review: a review of signing currently in place indicates that all signs
are in good condition. and that adequate warning aad
directional. information has been provided to motorists (see
sketch under Appendix "D").
Conclusions. tb.e warrant analysis shows that current traffic vol.uir„es do
not support signalization of this intersection_ However,
recurring accidents - particularly rear end collisions —
indicate that some form of mitigative measure be uiitiated.
The posted speed limit of 55NTH on. Route 250 an each
approach. to the intersection is receiving reasonable
compliance — most traffic recorded at a combined
09/14/2004 '11:'15 4j4y lyz;(!Dy VDU
Page 3.
Sa.fcty /Operational Study
Routc 250 @ Routc 676
Aft,marle County
85"' %tile speed of 58MPH. The advisory speed of 45M., PB..
is receiving significantly less compliance. The izitroducti,on.
of additional measures to encourage lower speeds oia
approach to and through the intersection would. be
beneficial.
As noted above twenty -seven accidents were recorded.
during a 57month period_ Of these 13 - almost half — were
ear end" collisions. Four of five angle accidents involved
vehicles entering Route 250 from Ti.lman Rd - one in 2000,
one in 200 1., and two in 2004 - one of which was a fatality.
The fatal accident occurred under a. scenario provi.dir),g
maximum sight distance availability. Consideration for
construction of left turn lanes at the intersection should be
given — especially if side road volumes increase due to
development within the area. Sight distance for drivers
entering Route 250 from, the south leg of Tilman. Rd. is
minimal at best and cannot be corrected without substantial
reconstruction. However, based upon our accident data this
characteristic does not appear to have a sipificant negative
impact upon intersection operations at present.
Recommandadons: therefore, based upon. the forgoing conclusions the
following measures are recommended:
install an. intersection wan.)ing flasher — flashing arn.ber
on the Route 250 approaches and .red, on the Tilman Rd.
approaches. An overhead flasher will identify the
intersection location and delineate the point of potential
conflict.
upgrade intersection warning and, advisory speed signing
on. Route 250 on each approach to 3606 and 24x24
inches respectively. Th.e flasher addi.ti.on and signing
upgrade is aimed at impressing upon motorists the need
to exercise caution. and reduce speed as they approach
and traverse the intersection, and to heighten awareness
of potential conflict.
19/14!2004 52:25 4349793759 VDOT
Page 4.
Safety /Operational Study
Route 250 @ Route 676
Albemarle County
recommend that county and residency personnel ineet to
consider any future development in the area that may
generate additional side road volumes and evaluate
the need to incorporate intersection improverncnts into
the six year or other planning processes to include tlh,e
addition, of protected left turn lanes and enhancing sight
distance for traffic stopped. northbound on Tilman Rd.
Our district sign crews will complete the recommended signing upgrades in, the corning
weeks as scheduling permits. We anticipate that construction of the itatersecti.on will take
place in. the late spring or summer of 2005.
If you have any questions, please let me .know.
pc: Anne Hagan
Maxwell Carpenter.
Bob Moore
Mmleza Salehi
Faulconer Construction
Final Site Plan
Landscape Calculations
Faulconer Office Area
Phase 1
Interior Landscaping Required
23,070 s.f @ 5% = 1,154 s.f.
1,154 s.f @ 50% = 577 s.f. required
Interior Landscaping Provided
6 Trees @ 50 s.f./ ea. = 300 s.f. provided
Planting island in front of Faulconer Office (trees and shrubs) = 1,667 s.f.
Phase 2
Interior Landscaping Required
23,070 s.f @ 5% = 1,154 s.f.
1,154 s.f @ 50% = 577 s.f. required
Interior Landscaping Provided
9 trees @ 50 s.f./ ea. = 450 s.f. provided.
Shrubbery in parking lot = 890 s.f
Faulconer Shop Area
Interior Landscaping Required
20,240 s.f @ 5% = 1,012 s.f.
Interior Landscaping Provided
21 trees @ 50 s.f./ ea. = 1,050 s.f. provided.
iiI' 31It'li +)S" ,ilil' )t4,'; ti.' { 7 4 f.
GROUND VIBRATION
A
CONSULTANTS, INC, 6580 Valley Center Dr.,Suite 331 Telephone (540) 731 -8360
Fairlawn, Virginia 24141 Fax (540) 731 -8362
January 8, 2007
Mr. Vince Derr
Faulconer Construction Company
2496 Old Ivy Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
Subject: Vibration Study at Faulconer Yard — Charlottesville
Dear Mr. Derr,
Ground Vibration Consultants, Inc. (GVC) is pleased to submit this report
for the above referenced project.
GVC visited the site on December 14, 2006, to install two (2) seismographs
on the Faulconer yard property off Woodburn Road in Charlottesville. Per the
enclosed sketch, the seismographs were installed on the closest residential
property line relative to the center of the existing yard building, a distance of
275.46 feet west.
The site was subsequently monitored continuously for five consecutive
working days (December 15, 18, 19, 20 and 21) from start of business
approximately 7:30 am) to the end of the business day (approximately 4:30 pm).
Results of the Monitoring
The seismograph recordings were manually started and stopped each day.
These acts by themselves caused daily recordable events on the print outs. Aside
from these start — stop events, during the duration of the test period, only one
recordable event was detected. This occurred on Monday, December 18 at 10:18
am. It is my understanding that the event was both felt and heard by Faulconer
employees and came from a source off the Faulconer property in the direction of
the SPCA operation to the south of the current site.
In my opinion, through this testing period, no event occurred or was caused
by Faulconer Construction Company operations on their property that violated the
Damage Claim Investigations • Pre & Post Blast Surveys • Pre & Post Construction Surveys • Pile Drive Monitoring • Seismograph Sales & Rental
requirements of the Albemarle County code as it relates to allowable vibrations at
adjacent residential property lines.
We have endeavored to provide the professional services as reported
herein in accordance with generally accepted geoscience practice and make no
warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the services provided and included
in this report.
If there are questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact me.
CONSULTANTS, INC.
Attachments
Property Sketch
Monitoring Data
Sincerely,
O
O
0
Ln
Q
V
000)
C)i Cu
C'Xi 0i
4-J < <
c cn cl)
O — N
Z*
4-) 4J -P
1) c c
Iat"
0-
u
mi l - - -6 -F, '
M
Printed: January 10, 2007 (V 8.01 - 8.01) Page
Event Report: Event List - cAbtastware 8leventlb 1228 2 -21 G4 +4/
Type Serial DateRime No.Trigger Tran Vert Long Mic PVS1 Description
No.Chan Peak Peak Peak Peak in /s)
in /s)in /s)in /s)dB)
LOG BA11228 Dec 15/06 07:39:25 Start Monitoring
W BA11228 Dec 15 /06 07:39:28 4 Tran 1.07 0.850 0.290 88L 1.19
LOG BA11228 Dec 15 /06 07:39:30 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 15 /06 07:39:43 Start Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 15 /06 16:07:01 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11228 Dec 18 /06 07:29:20 Start Monitoring
W BA11228 Dec 18 /06 07:29:28 4 Tran 2.55 3.16 2.05 100.OL 3.54
LOG BA11228 Dec 18 /06 07:29:30 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 18 /06 07:29:43 Start Monitoring
W BA11228 Dec 18 /06 10:18:40 4 Long 3.78 1.51 4.51 105.5L 5.90 ot
LOG BA11228 Dec 18 /06 10:18:42 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 18 /06 10:18:56 Start Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 18 /06 16:02:46 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11228 Dec 19 /06 07:14:33 Start Monitoring
W BA11228 Dec 19 /06 07:14:39 4 Vert 0.220 0.390 0.535 88L 0.564
LOG BA11228 Dec 19 /06 07:14:41 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 19 /06 07:14:55 Start Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 19 /06 16:14:25 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA 11228 Dec 20106 07:10:59 Start Monitoring "
W BA11228 Dec 20 /06 07:11:06 4 Tran 0.670 0.760 0.770 88L 1.25
LOG BA11228 Dec 20 /06 07:11:08 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 20 /06 07:11:22 Start Monitoring
W BA11228 Dec 20 106 16:04:17 4 Long 0.0150 0.01000 0.0250 88L 0.0269
LOG BA11228 Dec 20 /06 16:04:19 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 20 /06 16:04:32 Start Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 20 /06 16:04:38 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11228 Dec 21 106 07:17:12 Start Monitoring
W BA11228 Dec 21 /06 07:17:18 4 Vert 0.195 0.410 0.450 88L 0.613
LOG BA11228 Dec 21 106 07:17:20 Stop Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 21 /06 07:17:33 Start Monitoring
LOG BA11228 Dec 21 /06 16:07:55 Keyboard Stop
mi l - - -6 -F, '
M
Printed: January 10, 2007 (V 8.01 - 8.01) Page
Printed: January 10, 2007 (V 8.01 - 8.01) Pa
Report: Event List 8 \event \b 229 2 -21Eventc:\blastware
Type Serial Date/Time No.Trigger Tran Vert Long Mic PVS1 Description
No.Chan Peak Peak Peak Peak in /s)
in /s)in /s)in /s)dB)
LOG BA11229 Dec 15/06 07:38:36 Start Monitoring
W BA11229 Dec 15106 07:38:39 4 Tran 0.635 1.11 1.29 95.91L 1.72
W BA11229 Dec 15 /06 07:38:41 4 Long 0.01000 0.01000 0.0200 88L 0.0229
W BA11229 Dec 15 /06 07:38:44 4 Tran 0.0400 0.0300 0.0500 88L 0.0628
W BA11229 Dec 15106 07:38:57 4 Tran 0.0550 0.0150 0.0600 88L 0.0815
LOG BA11229 Dec 15 /06 16:06:35 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11229 Dec 18 /06 07:26:39 Start Monitoring
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 07:26:57 4 Vert 2.11 2.01 2.46 101.01-2.82
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 07:28:37 4 Tran 0.0200 0.01000 0.0150 88L 0.0255
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 07:29:30 4 Tran 0.0300 0.0150 0.01000 88L 0.0308
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 10:18:32 4 Long 0.120 0.115 0.345 88L 0.35
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 10:18:35 4 Vert 0.930 0.805 2.43 100.0E 2.70
W BA11229 Dec 18 106 10:18:37 4 Long 0.125 0.0700 0.270 88L 0.277 G.^
W BA11229 Dec 18!06 10:18:39 4 Vert 1.03 0.405 1.96 97.51 2.19
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 10:18:44 4 Long 0.0250 0.0150 0.0250 88L 0.0367
W BA11229 Dec 18 /06 10:18:47 4 Long 0.0250 0.01000 0.0300 88L 0.036
LOG BA11229 Dec 18 /06 16:03:27 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11229 Dec 19 /06 07:13:46 Start Monitoring
W BA11229 Dec 19 /06 07:13:52 4 Tran 0.345 0.275 0.395 88L 0.512
LOG BA11229 Dec 19 /06 16 :14:59 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11229 Dec 20 /06 07:12:12 Start Monitoring
W BA11229 Dec 20 106 07:12:24 4 Vert 0.380 0.420 0.625 88L 0.682
LOG BA11229 Dec 20 /06 16:04:15 Keyboard Stop
LOG BA11229 Dec 21 /06 07:16:33 Start Monitoring
W BA11229 Dec 21 /06 07:16:41 4 Tran 0.550 0.450 0.335 88L 0.594
LOG BA11229 Dec 21 /06 16:08:23 Keyboard Stop
Printed: January 10, 2007 (V 8.01 - 8.01) Pa
FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION YARD
NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT
Albemarle County, Virginia
October 2004
Prepared for:
Faulconer Construction Company, Inc.
By:
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.
6767 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 216
Richmond, VA 23225
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a noise analysis for the proposed Faulconer
Construction Yard in Albemarle County, Virginia. The proposed yard would be
located on a 27 acre site in the Town of Ivy and would replace an existing and
smaller construction yard in Albemarle County.
PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the analysis was to determine the affect of the proposed
construction yard on the noise environment at the surrounding properties.
Specifically, would noise generated by operations at the construction yard be
expected to violate the Albemarle County Code, Section 4.18 Noise.
Since the new yard is not in operation, it was decided to measure noise levels at
the existing facility and apply the results to the new site, taking into account the
size and layout of the facilities.
Short-term noise measurements of 5 to 10 minutes duration each were conducted
at five representative locations in the existing construction yard using a Bruel &
Kjaer Model 2230 precision integrating sound level meter. A similar measurement
with the same equipment was conducted at the site of the proposed yard. The
purpose of these measurements was to get a sense of the existing noise
conditions at various locations at the current yard and the new site. In addition,
one long -term measurement of 92 hours was conducted at the existing yard using
a field - calibrated Larson Davis 870 sound level meter. The purpose of this
measurement was to determine if Albemarle County Code noise violations were
occurring at the existing yard. All measurements were conducted by Harris Miller
Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) during the week of October 11 thru 15 2004.
The results of the measurements are expressed as A- weighted equivalent sound
levels. The A- weighted sound level, a single number measure of sound intensity
with weighted frequency characteristics that corresponds to human subjective
response to noise, fluctuates from moment to moment, and is called the equivalent
sound level (L The Leq is the value or level of a steady, non - fluctuating sound
that represents the same sound energy as the actual time - varying sound
evaluated over the same time period. In this report, all noise levels are expressed
in A- weighted decibels (dBA).
RESULTS
Table 1 gives the results of the short -term noise measurements. At the existing
construction yard, 5 to 10 minute Leqs ranged from 45 to 57 dBA. While noise
generated by activities in the yard contributed to the overall noise levels, other
noise sources appeared to be dominant. These included low flying aircraft, trash
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530 3
pick -up trucks, construction at an adjacent site, nearby roadway traffic, and dog
barking at an adjacent kennel. When noise from these sources was absent, levels
ranged from the low to mid 40's.
The result of the measurement at the site of the new construction yard was a 10
minute Leq of 40 dBA, with one minute Leqs of 35 to 44 dBA. Such levels are
typical of an undeveloped tract in a rural area where nearby roadway traffic is
minimal.
The long -term measurement was conducted near the back property line of the
existing construction yard and was approximately 250 feet from the maintenance
shop. One short -term measurement site was within a few feet of this site and
another was close -by.
The results of the long -term measurement, summarized in Table 2, are divided
into daytime and nighttime periods as defined by the Albemarle County Code.
The hours from 7 am to 10 pm are considered daytime, while the period from 10
pm to 7 am is classified as nighttime.
Table 3 lists the Leq(h) for each of the 92 hours of the long -term measurement.
The table also includes for each hour the maximum noise level (Lmax) and the
L(10), the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time.
The Leq(h)'s ranged from 49 to 60 dBA during the daytime periods and 41 to 55
dBA during the nighttime periods. In neither period did an hourly Leq violate the
County Code Maximum Sound Levels (4.18.04), regardless of "Receiving Zone"
type. However, during most of the 92 hours, the Lmax's did exceed the maximum
allowable levels. The Lmax represents the highest level recorded during the time
period (in this case one hour periods) but does not contribute any information
about the duration or frequency of such events. The L(10) does provide more
insight. Each L(10) in Table 3 represents the noise level that was exceeded for a
total of 6 minutes during the measurement hour. The L(10) exceedance event
could have occurred continuously for 6 minutes or could have been spread out
over the hour. During only one of the 92 hours was the L(10) such that the
exceedence time was more than 6 minutes.
The long -term measurement also recorded any daytime exceedance events
approaching or exceeding 5 continuous minutes. Exceedance in this case was
defined as greater than 60 dBA based on the County Code Maximum Sound Level
for residential (daytime).
Only two such events occurred during the 92 hour period. One occurred on
October 13 between 7:22 and 7:28 am (a duration of 5 minutes and 58 seconds).
The Leq for that period was 63 dBA and the Lmax was 79 dBA. The event
occurred during a thunderstorm containing heavy rain, lightning, and thunder.
While the storm was the obvious source of the exceedance, Table 3 provides even
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530 4
kk
more information. The Leq for the one hour period from 7 to 8 am was
significantly less at 58 dBA than the event Leq of 63, the Lmax for the hour
occurred during the event, and all but two seconds of exceedance of the L(10) of
59 dBA occurred during the event. The other event occurred on October 11
between 3:20 and 3:26 pm (a duration of 4 minutes and 48 seconds). The event
Leq of 61 dBA was higher than the Leq(h) of 58 dBA for the period from 3 to 4 pm,
the event Lmax of 69 dBA was not the hourly Lmax (70 dBA), and 80 percent of
the exceedance of the L(10) of 60 dBA occurred during the event. The noise
source or sources of this event were not definitely determined; however, heavy
construction at a site just on the other side of the back property line of the
Faulconer yard was apparently underway that afternoon.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the noise measurements (short and long -term) do not provide
conclusive evidence that operations at the existing Faulconer construction yard
generate noise sufficient to create a violation of the Albemarle County Code.
During the 92 hour measurement period, no events of 5 continuous minutes or
Applying the measurement results to the new (proposed) Faulconer Construction
Yard in Ivy does not provide definite answers either. However, the size and layout
of the new site should have a positive affect on the resulting noise environment.
The residential properties adjacent to and north of the new site will be close to the
new office buildings but approximately 1000 feet from the maintenance shop and
associated noise generating operations. used n a reduction in noise of 6
decibels per each doubling of distance, construction y and enerate noise levels at
the rest ential property Ines s o 1 e ess t an half as loud as those cons ruction
yard generated leve s currently occurring at the back property line of the e Lng
site. Simi ar y, noiseTevels at the Vir inia L. Murray Elementary School propert
line should be even ess an those at the residen properties.
Construction yard generated noise levels at the commercial /industrial properties
located along the east property line of the new Faulconer site should be slightly
higher than those at the residential properties but less than those at the existing
yard back property line. Also, the Maximum Sound Level allowable in accordance
with the Albemarle County Code is 5 to 10 dBA higher for commercial /industrial
properties than for residential and institutional properties.
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
operations occurrea. onon: auratlOn events Wllfl nUlse IeVCis CXI:CCU111y UU UC3f'1
did occur as evidenced by the hourly Lmax and L(10) values. However, given the
background noise generated by aircraft, trash pick -up truck and other roadway
traffic, and construction on adjacent sites, it was impossible to determine if and to
what extent the Faulconer yard operations contributed to the noise levels.
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530 5
A farm and residential property adjacent to the west property line of the new
Faulconer Yard and directly behind the proposed office buildings should receive
yard generated noise level half as loud.as_t by operations at the
existing site at the back property line. A currently vacant property located at the
Faulconer yard west property line and south of the farm and residential property
should receive construction yard generated noise levels similar to those yard
generated levels at the back property line of the existing yard.
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530 6
TABLE 1. Short -Term Noise Measurement Results
Location Date Start Time Duration Measurement
Existing Yard — Near Back 10/11/04 10:34 am 10 mins 49 dBA
Prop Lin
10/11/04 Day 12:19 pm to
Existing Yard — Far Left Side 10/11/04 10:46 am 8 mins 48 dBA
of Yard when facing shop)
41 mins
10/11/04
Existing Yard — Near Front 10/11/04 10:57 am 5 mins 57 dBA
Gate
Existing Yard — Far Right
10/12/04 Day
am to 15 hrs
Side of Yard (when facing 10/11/04 11:05 am 5 mins 45 dBA
shop)
10112/04 Night
New Yard — Near East 10/11/04 1:39 pm 10 mins 40 dBA
Property Line
Existing Yard — Long -Term
Day ammo 15 hrs 53 to 59 dBA
Site — Near Back Property 10/14/04 9:20 am 10 mins 53 dBA
Line
10/13/04 Night 10 pm to
TABLE 2. Long -Term Noise Measurement Results
Date Day or Time Duration Range Lmax
Begin Night Leq(h)
10/11/04 Day 12:19 pm to 9 hrs
49 to 59 dBA 77 dBA
10 m 41 mins
10/11/04 Night 10 pm to 9 hrs 42 to 53 dBA 76 dBA
10/12/04 Day
am to 15 hrs 53 to 60 dBA 81 dBA
10 pm
10112/04 Night 10 pm to 9 hrs 41 to 52 dBA 76 dBA
10113/04 Day ammo 15 hrs 53 to 59 dBA 86 dBA
10 p
10/13/04 Night 10 pm to 9 hrs 43 to 55 dBA 77 dBA
10/14/04 Day m 15 hrs 53 to 60 dBA 86 dBA10
10/14/04 Night 10 amto 9 hrs 49 to 53 dBA 77 dBA
10/15/04 Day
7 am to 1 hr 52 to 54 dBA 76 dBA
42 mins
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530 7
TABLE 3. Long -Term Noise Measurement - Hourly Data
Date
Time
Began
Duration
Seconds Leq L(max)L(90)
11Oct 04 12:19:18 2442 59 77 60
11 Oct 04 13:00:00 3600 55 75 57
110ct 04 1 . 4:00:00 3600 54 68 57
11 Oct 04 15:00:00 3600 58 70 60
11 Oct 04 16:00:00 3600 56 77 59
11 Oct 04 17:00:00 3600 57 75 59
110ct 04 18:00:00 3600 53 70 54
11 Oct 04 19:00:00 3600 53 75 53
11 Oct 04 20:00:00 3600 51 74 51
11 Oct 04 21:00:00 3600 49 70 49
11 Oct 04 22:00:00 3600 52 76 48
11 Oct 04 23:00:00 3600 52 76 48
120ct 04 0:00:00 3600 52 74 46
120ct 04 1:00:00 3600 42 50 44
120ct 04 2:00:00 3600 42 56 44
120ct 04 3 :00:00 3600 43 51 45
120ct 04 4:00:00 3600 44 51 46
120ct 04 5:00:00 3600 51 72 52
120ct 04 6:00:00 3600 53 74 53
120ct 04 7:00:00 3600 60 79 60
120ct 04 8:00:00 3600 58 74 60
120ct 04 9:00:00 3600 56 74 58
120ct 04 10:00 :00 3600 56 76 59
120ct 04 11:00:00 3600 57 71 60
120ct 04 12:00:00 3600 54 78 57
120ct 04 13 :00:00 3600 59 76 60
120ct 04 14:00:00 3600 54 70 57
120ct 04 15:00:00 3600 55 75 57
120ct 04 16:00:00 3600 54 70 56
120ct 04 17 :00:00 3600 59 81 56
120ct 04 18:00:00 3600 53 71 54
120ct 04 19:00:00 3600 54 75 55
120ct 0 20:00:00 3600 53 76 52
120ct 04 21:00:00 3600 54 80 51
120ct 04 22:00:00 3600 52 76 49
120ct 04 23 :00:00 3600 49 73 47
130ct 04 0:00:00 3600 47 70 47
130ct 04 1:00:00 3600 43 52 45
130ct 04 2:00:00 3600 42 50 44
130ct 04 3:00:00 3600 41 55 44
130ct 04 4:00:00 3600 44 62 45
130ct 04 5:00:00 3600 48 71 49
130ct 04 6:00:00 3600 52 73 53
130ct 04 7:00 :00 3600 58 79 59
130ct 04 8:00:00 3600 53 74 54
130ct 04 9:00:00 3600 56 79 53
130ct 04 10:00 :00 3600 53 75 54
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
Faulconer Construction Yard Noise Analysis Report
HMMH Job Number 300530
Date Time
Be an
Duration
Seconds Leq L(max)L(10)
130ct 04 11 :00 :00 3600 53 72 52
130ct 04 12:00:00 3600 57 76 59
130ct 04 13:00:00 3600 55 79 54
130ct 04 14:00:00 3600 59 86 54
130ct 04 15:00:00 3600 54 75 54
130ct 04 16:00:00 3600 55 76 53
130ct 04 17:00 :00 3600 58 80 53
130ct 04 18:00:00 3600 53 78 52
130ct 04 19:00:00 3600 56 78 51
130ct 04 20:00:00 3600 53 77 53
130ct 04 21:00:00 3600 56 79 52
130ct 04 22:00:00 3600 55 77 51
130ct 04 23:00:00 3600 52 76 48
140ct 04 0:00:00 3600 50 76 47
140ct 04 1:00:00 3600 43 48 45
140ct 04 2:00:00 3600 44 53 46
140ct 04 3:00:00 3600 45 54 46
140ct 04 4:00:00 3600 44 53 45
140ct 04 5:00:00 3_6 44 53 46
140ct 04 6:00:00 3600 51 71 50
140ct 04 7:00:00 3600 54 71 57
1400 04 8 :00:00 3600 56 77 57
140ct 04 9:00:00 3600 60 86 58
140ct 04 10:00:00 3600 57 78 58
140ct 04 11:00:00 3600 58 83 59
140ct 04 12:00:00 3600 55 76 57
140ct 04 13:00:00 3600 59 77 60
140ct 04 14:00:00 3600 58 76 59
140ct 04 15 :00:00 3600 59 78 63
140ct 04 16:00:00 3600 57 77 58
140ct 04 17:00:00 3600 56 74 57
140ct 04 18:00:00 3600 53 72 53
140ct 04 19:00:00 3600 54 75 53
140ct 04 20:00:00 3600 53 73 53
140ct 04 21:00:00 3600 53 75 52
140ct 04 22:00 :00 3600 53 77 52
140ct 04 23:00:00 3600 53 75 52
150ct 04 0 :00:00 3600 52 70 52
150ct 04 1 :00 :00 3600 51 58 51
150ct 04 2:00 :00 3600 50 55 51
150ct 04 3:00 :00 3600 50 54 50
150ct 04 4:00 :00 3600 49 58 50
150ct 04 5:00 :00 3600 51 70 50
150ct 04 6:00:00 3600 53 73 54
150ct 04 7:00:00 3600 54 76 54
150ct 04 8:00:00 2527.2 52 67 54
Albemarle County, Virginia October 2004
WEG Project #1975
Faulconer Construction Office and Shop
Water Protection Plan
Albemarle County, Virginia
Prepared for
Faulconer Construction Company
2496 Old Ivy Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
A,T H 01
TONI E. B . rIAL ,
No. 01763
IONAt
Prepared by
Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc.
3000 Easter Circle
Williamsburg, Virginia 23188
757) 220 -6869
Fax: (757) 229 -4507
July 2004
46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 7401 Beat font Springs Drive, Suite 205
Sterling, Virginia 20166 Richmond, Virginia 23225
Telephone: (703) 406 -1390 Telephone: (804) 267 -3474
Fax: (703) 406 -1385 Fax: (804) 267 -3470
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
5.0 CERTIFIED ENGINEER'S REPORT
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The parcel contains approximately 27.37 acres and is undeveloped except for the existing;
road (Dettor Road). This site development application is for the location of Faulconer Construction
Company's (FCC) office building and their maintenance shop and yard. Also included on the site
plan is the footprint and location of another office building (Building "A ") that will be built in Phase
Two.
Proposed operations at this facility will include normal business operations in the office
building(s) as well as storage and maintenance of the construction vehicles. A more detailed
discussion of vehicle maintenance and operations is included in Section 5.3. Infrequent low volume
fueling of construction equipment may take place if required to complete a maintenance activity.
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF EMISSIONS/DISCHARGES
This section of the Certified Engineer's Report serves to list/identify all potential sources of
pollution and /or concerns about the project including emissions /discharges to land, air, or water, solid
or gaseous effluent and electrical impulses and noise under normal operations (Section 4.14.8 of the
Albemarle County Code). Main categories of potential emissions /discharges are provided in the
subsections listed below.
5.2.1 Air Pollution
Concerns about air pollution resulting from the normal operating activities planned at the
project site were raised at previous Albemarle County Planning Commission Meetings. Planned
normal operations at the project site do not result in any air emissions that require permitting and/or
monitoring through the DEQ or any other state or federal agency. However, the normal operations
involving construction vehicles and equipment will result in some minor air emissions in the form of
diesel exhaust. However, FCC plans to minimize over - exposure to diesel exhaust at the project site
through measures that are discussed in Section 5.3.1.
15
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
5.2.2 Water pollution
The nature of the proposed activities at the project site and its location within a County
drinking water supply watershed raised some concerns about potential adverse environmental impacts
in the form of water pollution. The project site contains an area for construction vehicle maintenance
and provides storage of vehicle fluids including the following:
Engine oil
Hydraulic oil
Drive train oil
Transmission oil
Waste oil
Diesel fuel
During previous Albemarle County Planning Commission meetings, citizens raised several
concerns with regard to potential water pollution as a result of this project. The following list
provides specific areas of concern raised at the meeting with regard to water pollution.
Critical slope disturbance /erosion into streams
Project in drinking water supply area
Spills
Sediment in streams
Vehicle /machinery wash water containing chemicals /pollutants
Drinking Water Well Contamination
Several treatment methods /mechanisms were identified to ensure that the proposed project
does not result in water pollution and are discussed in detail in Section 5.3.2.
5.2.3 Explosives
Concerns were raised during previous Planning Commission meetings concerning the
potential storage of explosives at the project location. There will be no permanent storage of
explosives onsite, only infrequent short-term (less than four hours) presence of such in a licensed and
approved vehicle.
16
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
5.2.4 Groundwater contamination
The project site is not served by a wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, a septic tank
drainfield is provided at the project site to adequately treat domestic wastewater flows. Waste
materials such as spent oil, antifreeze, greases, and other similar materials are stored in approved
waste containers and disposed of through a licensed waste handling company that routinely handles
such waste disposal.
5.2.5 Noise pollution
Normal operations at the project site are not anticipated to violate Albemarle County's noise
ordinances. The normal hours of operation at the project location for the yard are 7:00 AM to 4:00
PM and for the office are 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM five days a week. However, special circumstances
may occasionally require non - standard operating hours.
5.2.6 Vibration
Normal operations at the project site will not result in vibrations that exceed the values
specified in Section 4.14.2.2 of the Albemarle County Code.
5.2.7 Glare
The normal hours of operation at the project location for the yard are 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM
and for the office are 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM five days a week. Therefore, no direct or sky reflected
glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature processes such as combustion, welding or
otherwise, will occur so as to be visible beyond the lot line other than parking lot lighting, and other
lighting permitted by the Albemarle County Code.
5.2.8 Radioactivity
Site operations will not result in radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the
health and safety of persons on or beyond the premises.
5.3 TREATMENT METHODS/MECHANISMS
17
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
This section of the Certified Engineer's Report serves to provide a discussion of the treatment
methods and mechanisms to be used at the Faulconer Construction Company project site to control
any and all emissions /discharges from the proposed project site. Main categories of treatment
methods /mechanism for potential emissions /discharges are provided in the subsections listed below.
The following subsection headings correspond to those provided in Section 5.2 above.
5.3.1 Air Pollution
Unnecessary vehicle idling results in air pollution. FCC plans to limit vehicle idling to only
when necessary, which may occur during some vehicular repairs. However, idling of vehicles and
equipment is not a standard practice at the project site. In addition, unnecessary vehicle idling wastes
valuable resources including gasoline and, therefore, will be discouraged at the project location.
5.3.2 Water pollution
An Erosion and Sediment (E &S) Control Plan has been prepared by WEG to address E &S
control issues during construction and is included within the overall Water Protection Plan. E &S
control measures are identified on the plan for two phases of construction to ensure that proper E &S
controls will prohibit downstream water pollution as a result of the proposed project construction.
These E &S measures address the issue of critical slope disturbance and the project's proximity to
existing stream buffers. Though E &S controls have been developed to treat runoff from all areas of
the site throughout construction activity, critical erosion areas have also been identified that are to be
given particularly close attention. Such areas include those along the onsite stream channels,
proposed fill slopes, road crossings, and the outfalls from the proposed BM
Every effort has been made to avoid and /or minimize encroachments into the stream buffer,
vv- herever possible. Where buffer encroachments will occur, extra caution and awareness on the part
of the site contractor will be exercised to ensure the downstream waterways are not adversely
affected. As required by Albemarle County, a Buffer Mitigation Plan was submitted which quantifies
the area of encroachment within the existing stream buffer and proposes adequate mitigation to
compensate for the buffer losses while ensuring that water quality treatment is provided. This Buffer
Mitigation Plan must be approved by the County before any encroachments take place and will be
followed during project development.
18
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
Spill control is addressed through several levels on the project site. The project will include
containment structures for the following:
Engine oil
Hydraulic oil
Drive train oil
Transmission oil
Waste oil
Diesel oil
Fuel oil (for heating)
Storage of the above listed products will be provided in DEQ approved above - ground double
wall containment structures (500 gallon capacity each) proposed to be located on a concrete
apron/ramp immediately adjacent to the maintenance shop under a canopy to minimize exposure to
precipitation and potential contamination of stormwater runoff. Fuel oil for heating purposes will be
stored in a double -wall above ground tank with a capacity of 1,000 -2,000 gallons depending on the
final design of the building's heating system.
Other products to be stored on -site include paint, mineral spirits /turpentine, grease gun tube
lubricants, and small amounts of gasoline, antifreeze, and degreasers. These products will be stored
within the proposed pole barns (sheds) to be provided on -site in order to minimize exposure to
precipitation and potential contamination of stormwater runoff. Highly flammable materials are
stored in steel containers placed inside of a fireproof cabinet.
The majority of the vehicle maintenance will occur inside the maintenance building with
some exceptions including equipment that does not fit within the structure. An oil /water separator is
proposed to be located on the site downstream of the maintenance building and the aboveground
storage tank location. Any spills that occur at or near the storage and maintenance area would flow in
the direction of the oil/water separator, which will provide initial capture of the spill. The DEQ does
not routinely issue permits for discharges from oil /water separators. However, a DEQ permit was
listed as one of several conditions by the Albemarle County Planning Department to be met in order
for the department to accept submittal of the final site plan for signature.
A registration statement was submitted to the DEQ on April 16, 2004 for project coverage
under a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) general stormwater permit for
IM
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
industrial activity. The VPDES general permit (Permit No. VAR051507) was issued on April 29,
2004 and was valid through June 30, 2004. A second registration statement was submitted to the
DEQ in June 2004 to ensure continued coverage of the facility for a 5 -year permit term starting July
1, 2004. The new VPDES permit was received on July 14, 2004. The main requirement of this type
of VPDES general permit is the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP).
A SWPPP for the project site has been completed to address issues related to project
construction and industrial activity. The plan lists erosion and sediment controls /measures to be
provided during project construction as well as other measures for appropriate disposal of wastes,
spill prevention, good housekeeping cleanup, and control. This SWPPP is provided in Appendix C.
Washing of equipment and vehicles will take place on the project site within a designated
wash bay with a drain connected to the oil /water separator. Wash water will flow through the
oil/water separator before draining into one of the two bioretention basins designed to treat runoff
from the site. Vehicle and equipment washing is typically performed using only high - pressure water.
However, in some instances, a non - petroleum degreaser and/or biodegradable detergents are also used
to clean equipment. Material safety data sheets for the degreaser are provided in Appendix B.
5. 3.3 Explosives
Concerns were raised during previous Planning Commission meetings concerning the
potential storage of explosives at the project location. For over 15 years, FCC has stored small
quantities of blasting materials on the current yard property in containers specifically designed for
that purpose to be utilized on incidental projects. Both the State and Albemarle County Fire Marshall
regulate FCC's storage of such materials. There will be no permanent storage of explosives onsite,
only the short-term (less than four hours) presence of such in a licensed and approved vehicle.
5.3.4 Groundwater contamination
Permits have been obtained from the VDH for the septic tank drainfield and it will function
as it was designed to adequately treat wastewater flows from the project site. Although the septic
tank drainfield for the project site is located within the drinking water supply watershed, it is not the
only drainfield permitted by the County and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) within this
watershed. The VDH would not grant approval of the drainfield without properly investigating
F1
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
potential contamination of nearby residential drinking water wells. The VDH granted approval of the
drainfield. Therefore, no further treatment methods /mechanisms are required to address potential
groundwater contamination.
5.3.5 Noise pollution
Normal operations at the project site are not anticipated to violate Albemarle County's noise
ordinances. The normal hours of operation at the project location for the yard are 7:00 AM to 4:00
PM and for the office are 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM, five days a week. However, special circumstances
may occasionally require non - standard operating hours. As discussed in Section 3.1 above, FCC
plans to limit vehicle idling to only when necessary, usually for specific engine repairs. This practice
will reduce the potential for noise pollution as a result of normal operations at the project location.
Some noise may be generated onsite as a result of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) required backup warning beepers on vehicles and equipment. As these
beepers are an OSHA requirement for safety, they must be on at all times. The location of the site,
with extensive existing and proposed vegetation and plantings surrounding it, should adequately
dampen any sounds occurring as a result of normal site operations. The existing and additional
proposed stream buffer areas and proposed reforestation will further serve to dampen noise from the
site.
21
Faulconer Construction Company
Watershed Protection Plan
5.4 CONCLUSION
The proposed project by FCC will incorporate measures, both during construction and
commencement of site operations, to ensure that no adverse environmental affects occur as a result of
this project. FCC is an environmentally aware company with a clean record with the DEQ. The
employees at FCC are educated in proper site operation and spill prevention and cleanup measures to
react appropriately if an unforeseen spill - related event might occur onsite. The proposed project
incorporates several measures to address spills in order to prevent downstream contamination. A spill
prevention team has been assembled from the FCC staff that is trained in appropriate spill prevention
and cleanup, if necessary. An oil/water separator is provided onsite to "catch" stormwater runoff that
may contain excess oil and /or grease. A bioretention basin is located downstream of the oil /water
separator for further water quality treatment prior to stormwater runoff leaving the site.
The current storage yard for FCC has been in existence for over three decades within a '/4-
mile of the Rivanna Reservoir. FCC has never caused any damage to the reservoir or to any
surrounding neighbors. Both the DEQ and the Albemarle County Fire Marshall have conducted
inspections of the FCC yard and have found no violations.
22
John Y. Gooch, P.E.h Steve Gooch, CP. G. /A.O.S.E,
Phone (434) 293 -7449 iYtg, Inc_Fax (434) 293-513;
1821 Broadway Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 wwwgooch- eng.com
October 18, 2004
Mr. Vince Derr
Executive Vice - President
Faulconer Construction Company, Inc.
2496 Old Ivy Road
P.O. Box 7706
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
Re: Asphalt and Crushed Stone Thickness and CBR Test Results
Dettor Road
Ivy Business Park
Ivy, Virginia
Dear Vince:
Enclosed are the results of asphalt and crushed stone thickness measurements and
CBR test results from three (3) locations along Dettor Road at Ivy Business Park. All
thickness measurements and soil sampling were performed by our personnel.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Gooch Engineering and Testing, Inc.
Vj
Steve Gooch
Encl.
cc: .1111
Stations based on intersection of Morgantown Road (centerline) and Dettor Road
centerline) being 0 +00. 8 +60 is intersection with entrance road into Faulconer site.
Asphalt and Stone Thickness Measurements
Dettor Road
Ivy Business Park
Station Thickness of Thickness of Total Thickness CBR
Asphalt Crushed Stone (inches)value
inches)inches)
0+85 2 6 8 12.1
5 +10 2 8.5 10.5 5.0
8 +60 2 10 12 11.25
Stations based on intersection of Morgantown Road (centerline) and Dettor Road
centerline) being 0 +00. 8 +60 is intersection with entrance road into Faulconer site.
Wo o c h
ngin eering
esting,Inc.
Project:
Sample:
Description:
AASHO T -99
AASHO T -180
Cylinder No.
Hammer Wt.
Ivv Business Park
Red mica sandy silt
X Max. Dry Dens. 10(
13 Cylinder Ht. 6 in.
5.5 lb No. Lifts 5
By: JFB
Job No.: 2121
Locat.: Dettor Road - 85 ft. from intersection
with Morgantown Road
pcf., Opt. Moisture 22.8 %
Cylinder Vol. 0.0982 cu.ft. Cylinder Wt.
Blows /lift 45
1821 Broadway St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434 -293 -7449
FAX 434 -293 -5137 Date: 10/14/04
DENSITY AND MOISTURE DATA
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
As Compacted
0
0.025
After Soaking
0.050
Can No.A15
250
A16 A25
0.150
A26
Wt. wet sample + can, gm.68.56
0.300
68.62 68.53
1050
68.57
Wt. dry sample + can, gm.60.06 59.97 60.01 59.89
Wt. water, gm.8.50 8.65 8.52 8.68
Wt. can, gm.21.48 21.28 21.60 21.72
Wt. dry soil, gm.38.58 38.69 38.41 38.17
Percent moisture 22.0 22.2 22.4 22.2 22.5 22.7
Wt. mold + wet soil, lb.21.44 21.61
Wt. wet soil, lb.12.32 12.49
Wet density of soil, pcf.125.5 126.9
Dry density of soil, pcf.102.7 103.6
Percent max. lab densi 1020 102.9
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
0.000 0
0.025 50
0.050 150
0.075 250
0.100 37r,
0.150 525
0.200 675
0.300 900
0.400 1050
0.500 1200
CBR TEST REPORT
SWELL DATA
Dial reading before soaking
Dial reading after soaking
Swell
Percent Swell
Volume after soaking
CBR = 100(375/3000) = 12.5
0.295 in
0.013 in
0.22 `%
0.0984 cu. ft.
AVERAGE SOAKED CBR VALUE - 12.5 +11.7/2 = 12.1
0.282 in
WesO C h 1821 Broadway St.
n g i n e e r i n g Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434 - 293 -7449
tin g, inc. FAX 434- 293 -5137
Project:
Sample:
Description:
AASHO T -99
AASHO T -180
Cylinder No.
Hammer Wt.
Ivy Business Park
Red mica sandy silt
X Max. Dry Dens.
14 Cylinder Ht.
5.5 lb No. Lifts
CBR TEST REPORT
Date: 10/14/04
By: JFB
Job No.: 2121
Locat.: Dettor Road - 85 ft. from intersection
with Morgantown Road
100.7 pcf., Opt. Moisture 22.8 'yo
6 in. Cylinder Vol. 0.0982 cu.ft. Cylinder Wt. _
5 Blows /lift 45
DENSITY AND MOISTURE DATA
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in
Load
lb.
As Compacted
0
0.025
After Soaking
0.050
Can No.A15
250
A16 A27
0.200
A28
Wt. wet sample + can, gm.68.56
0.400
68.62 68.62
1250
68.51
Wt. dry sample + can, gm.60.06 59.97 60.01 59.85
Wt. water, gm,8.50 8.65 8.61 8.66
Wt. can, gm.21.48 21.28 21.48 21.16
Wt. dry soil, gm.38.58 38.69 38.53 38.69
Percent moisture 22.0 22.2 22.4 22.3 22.4 22.4
Wt. mold + wet soil, lb.21.60 21.71
Wt. wet soil, lb.12.46 12.57
Wet density of soil, pcf.126.9 127.5
Dry density of soil, pcf.103.8 104.2
Percent max. lab density 103.1 103.4
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in
Load
lb.
0.000 0
0.025 75
0.050 150
0.075 250
0.10
0.150
350
500
0.200 650
0.300 900
0.400 1000
0.500 1250
SWELL DATA
Dial reading before soaking 0.164 in
Dial reading after soaking 0.19 in
Swell 0.026 in
Percent Swell 0.43 %
Volume after soaking 0.0986 cu. ft.
CBR = 100(350/3000) = 11.7
102.
0
1
100.
0
9
98.
0
97.
0
I
960
I
I I
19.
0
20.
0
21.
0
22.
0 23.
o MOISTURE
11
25.
0
SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT
Ivy Business Park
Dettor Road
85 ft. from intersection with Morgantown Road
Sieve
4
10
40
200
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Cumulative % Passing
97.8
96.2
76.2
59.5
ATTERBERG LIMITS
44.2
31.7
Plasticity Index 12.5
O O C h 1821 Broadway St.
n g i n e e r i n g Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434 -293 -7449
e s tin g, I n c. FAX 434 -293 -5137
Project:
Sample:
Description:
AASHO T -99
AASHO T -180
Cylinder No.
Hammer Wt.
Ivy Business Park
Brown silty sand
X Max. Dry Dens.
15 Cylinder Ht.
5.5 lb No. Lifts
CBR TEST REPORT
Date: 10/14/04
By: JFB
Job No.: 2121
Locat.: Dettor Rd. 510 ft. from intersection with
Morgantown Road
92.9 pcf., Opt. Moisture 23.5 °/o
6 in. Cylinder Vol. 0.0982 cu.ft. Cylinder Wt. _ 9
5 Blows /lift 45
DENSITY AND MOISTURE DATA
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
As Compacted
0
0.025
After Soaking
0.050
Can No.A17
75
A18 A29
0.150
A30
Wt. wet sample + can, gm.68.52
0.300
68.38 68.60
500
68.48
Wt. dry sample + can, gm.59.51 59.37 59.54 59.36
Wt. water, gm.9.01 9.01 9.06 9.12
Wt. can, gm.21.21 21.55 21.40 21.74
Wt. dry soil, gm.38.30 37.82 38.14 37.62
Percent moisture 23.5 23.7 23.8 23.8 24.0 24.2
Wt. mold + wet soil, lb.20.91 21.27
Wt. wet soil, lb.11.65 12.01
Wet density of soil, pcf.118.6 121.2
Dry density of soil, pcf.95.9 97.7
Percent max. lab density 103.3 105.2
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
0.000 0
0.025 25
0.050 50
0.075 75
0.100 125
0.150 200
0.200 275
0.300 400
0.400 500
0.500 575
SWELL DATA
Dial reading before soaking 0.132 in
Dial reading after soaking 0.189 in
Swell 0.057 in
Percent Swell 0.95 %
Volume after soaking 0.0991 cu. ft.
CBR = 100(200- 50/3000) = 5.0
AVERAGE SOAKED CBR VALUE - 5.0 +5.0/2 = 5.0
Wo o c h
ngineering
esting,znc.
CBR TEST REPORT
1821 Broadway St.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434 -293 -7449
FAX 434 -293 -5137 Date: 10/14/04
Project:Ivy Business Park
Sample:
0
Description:Brown silty sand
AASHO T -99 X Max. Dry Dens. 92.9
AASHO T -180
Cylinder No.16 Cylinder Ht. 6 in.
Hammer Wt.5.5 lb No. Lifts 5
By: JFB
Job No.: 2121
Locat.: Dettor Rd. 510 ft. from intersection with
Morgantown Road
pcf., Opt. Moisture 23.5 %
Cylinder Vol. 0.0982 cu.ft. Cylinder Wt. _ 9.23
Biows /lift 45
DENSITY AND MOISTURE DATA
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
As Compacted
0
0.025
After Soaking
0.050
Can No.A17 A18 Al
0.150
A2
Wt. wet sample + can, gm.68.52
0.300
68.38 68.56
475
68.66
Wt. dry sample + can, gm.59.51 59.37 59.31 59.35
Wt. water, gm.9.01 9.01 9.25 9.31
Wt. can, gm.21.21 21.55 21.21 20.99
Wt. dry soil, gm.38.30 37.82 38.10 38.36
Percent moisture 23.5 23.7 23.8 24.3 24.3 24.3
Wt. mold + wet soil, lb.20.90 21.18
Wt. wet soil, lb.11.67 11.95
Wet density of soil, pcf.118.8 120.7
Dry density of soil, pcf.96.1 97.2
Percent max. lab density 103.4 104.6
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
0.000 0
0.025 25
0.050 40
0.07
0.100
50
125 ,
0.150 200
0.200 275
0.300 400
0.400 475
0.500 550
SWELL DATA
Dial reading before soaking
Dial reading after soaking
Swell
Percent Swell
Volume after soaking
0.063 in
0.11 in
0.047 in
0.78 %
0.0990 cu. ft.
CBR = 100(200- 50/3000) = 5.0
94.
0
93.
0
CIO
92.
0
z
91.
0
90.
0
18.
0 19.) 20.
0
21.
0
22.
0
23.
0
24.
0
25.
0 26.
0
27.
0
28.
0
MOISTURE
SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT
Ivy Business Park
Dettor Road
510 ft. from intersection with Morgantown Road
Sieve
4
10
40
200
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Cumulative % Passing
99.6
98.1
78.4
36.1
ATTERBERG LIMITS
54.8
459
Plasticity Index 8.9
Westing, O C h
1821 Broadway St.
n g i n e e r i n g Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434- 293 -7449
1 n C. FAX 434 -293 -5137
CBR TEST REPORT
Date: 10/14/04
By: JFB
Project:Ivy Business Park Job No.:2121
Sample:
After Soaking
Locat.:Dettor Road - Int. w/ road into Faulconer
Description:Dark brown silty sand
A14
Site
AASHO T -99 X Max. Dry Dens.107.4 pcf., Opt.Moisture 17.9 %
AASHO T -180
68.59 68.69
1150
Cylinder No.11 Cylinder Ht.6 in. Cylinder Vol. 0.0982 cu.ft. Cylinder Wt. 9.10
Hammer Wt.5.5 lb No. Lifts 5 Blows /lift 45
DENSITY AND MOISTURE DATA
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
As Compacted
0
0.025
After Soaking
0.050
Can No.A13
250
A14 A21
0.150
A22
Wt. wet sample + can, gm.68.50
0.300
68.59 68.69
1150
68.75
Wt. dry sample + can, gm.61.52 61.7 61.67 61.58
Wt. water, gm.6.98 6.89 7.02 7.17
Wt. can, gm.21.39 21.49 21.65 20.9
Wt. dry soil, gm.40.13 40.21 40.02 40.68
Percent moisture 17.4 17.3 17.1 17.5 17.6 17.6
Wt. mold + wet soil, lb.21.88 22.06
Wt. wet soil, lb.12.78 12.96
Wet density of soil, pcf.130.1 132.0
Dry density of soil, pcf.111.0 112.2
Percent max. lab density 103.3 104.5
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
lb.
0.000 0
0.025 50
0.050 150
0.075 250
0.100 350
0.150 450
0.200 650
0.300 875
0.400 1150
0.500 1350
SWELL DATA
Dial reading before soaking
Dial reading after soaking
Swell
Percent Swell
Volume after soaking
CBR = 100(350/3000) = 11.7
0.346 in
0.001 in
0.02 %
0.0982 cu. ft.
AVERAGE SOAKED CBR VALUE - 11.7 +10.8/2 = 11.25
0.345 in
O O C h 1821 Broadway St.
n g i n e e r in g Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434 - 293 -7449
e s tin g , in c . FAX 434 -293 -5137
Project:
Sample:
Description:
AASHO T -99
AASHO T -180
Cylinder No.
Hammer Wt.
Ivy Business Park
Dark brown silty sand
X Max. Dry Dens.
12 Cylinder Ht.
5.5 lb No. Lifts
Job No.: 2121
Locat.: Dettor Road - Int. w/ road into Faulconer
Site
107.4 pcf., Opt. Moisture 17.9 %
6 in. Cylinder Vol. 0.0982 cu.ft. Cylinder Wt. _ 9.Z
5 Blows /lift 45
CBR TEST REPORT
Date: 10/14/04
By: JFB
DENSITY AND MOISTURE DATA
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
ib.
As Compacted
0
0.025
After Soaking
0.050
Can No.A13
175
A14 A23
0.150
A24
Wt. wet sample + can, gm.68.50
0.300
68.59 68.58
1200
68.55
Wt. dry sample + can, gm.61.52 61.7 61.57 61.48
Wt. water, gm.6.98 6.89 7.01 7.07
Wt. can, gm.21.39 21.49 21.38 21.08
Wt. dry soil, gm.40.13 40.21 40.19 40.40
Percent moisture 17.4 17.3 17.1 17.4 17.5 17.5
Wt. mold + wet soil, lb.21.89 22.13
Wt. wet soil, Ib.12.47 12.71
Wet density of soil, pcf.127.0 129.3
Dry density of soil, pcf.108.3 110.1
Percent Max. lab density 100.8 102.5
PENETRATION DATA
Penetration
in.
Load
ib.
0.000 0
0.025 50
0.050 125
0.075 175
0.100 2.75
0.150 450
0.200 600
0.300 950
0.400 1200
0.500 1450
SWELL DATA
Dial reading before soaking
Dial reading after soaking
Swell
Percent Swell
Volume after soaking
CBR = 100(600- 275/3000) = 10.8
0.176 in
0.181 in
0.005 in
0.08 %
0.0983 cu. ft.
108.
0
107.
0
106.
0
rc
rc 105.
0
104.
0
103.
0
102.
0
101.
0
12.
0
13.
0
14.
0
15.
0
16.
0
17.
0
18.
0
19.
0
20.
0
21.
0
22.
0'
MOISTURE
SIEVE ANALYSIS REPORT
Ivy Business Park
Dettor Road
Intersection with road into Faulconer site
Sieve
4
10
40
200
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Cumulative % Passing
95.1
88.2
72.3
27.4
ATTERBERG LIMITS
33.2
31.2
Plasticity Index 2.0
Virginia Department of Transportation - Pavement Design Guide 0 1996 (rev2000)
Appendix IV
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets
This sheet is intended for use and submission in coniunction with VDOT's Subdivision Street Requirements
County A l bem A- 2c,-Date: t 12104
Subdivision C.o n ETZ 4-e-
Street Name 1z fzO & t7 e I S G
Developer
Note: For
oF.P'I 5%,
Phone:
AIJ1 Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBRD Design CBR = Average of CBRT x 213 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBRT CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRD x RF)
DP Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
DR Thickness index reouired. based on Design ADT and SSV. determined by Annendix II-
Step le "' , Deteriwne'D`e`sign ADT -Step.2: Determine. Design Values
n ..CBR;RF'and'SSV , ` <
ADT Sam le DBR Resiliency Factor
oHCV = 100 x HCV x ADT)
of I
20 x IICV. = - -
Note: For %HCV O 5 %, use ADT
Note: For
oF.P'I 5%,
1 2. 1 source value
2 S . d Table 1
3 Z Appendix I 1-•
DME approved RF
For preliminary designs, use the lowest RF
value in the equation
CBR x RF = SSV
x 61
Design ADT
Use greater of ADT or EPT
Step 3: Pavement Design (Check appropriate box and show proposed pavement design below.)
A) Limited to Design ADT S 400 - Show pavement material notations and thickness from Appendix I\' Tables A and 13
B) Show pavement section as developed in the Pavement Design Guide. D = --''
See Appendix III for material notations and thickness equivaleney values (a)). frorn Appendix 11
Description of ed Pavement Section - X ISTi6
Material Notation Thickness, It a a ), h)
Surface 2
tt
S rvt _ 96A G 3.3
Base R a
Subbase
Dp must sal or exceed the value of D Dp = E(a x h)
t
DP vi_ f/: 3 U; 51,V h'pPe.ali.t G » rvv
STORM Y SEWER DESIGN
I %VV • --
COUNTY
u, °`DESCRIPTIONL & D 229 COMPUTATIONS SHEETOF
AREA RUN-INLET RAIN
FALL
RUI
f)FF
0
INVEEIT
ELEVATIONS LENGTH SLOPE OIA.
CAPA
CITY
FLOW
VEL. TIME
REMARKS
DRAIN. OFF CA TIME
FROM F
7.,
COEF.A
INC
4ULa
CCUM M
IN-
IN./
HR.C.
F.S.
UPPER
ENO
LOWER
ENO FT.FT./
FT.IN.C F.. SEC.
POINT ACRES C METED UTES
1
0)11)13)14)1
Z)3) (4) (5(
6)7)8)
1>
1¢
7 li?
41 -sz
A 03
4 .A a^ • f'°fr •1 .1. 1 7—t fe -3 5 ' . ,,i;.
7.'.
Z,
C
c,c-Z.. /f.<
Z.F
7 5
f
c
1--8. I ag,€'.>vP.
c:>ql-.
Gl
L I 30.
E
7 I .
3. Q
i3 S•
STORM -SEWER DE51UN GUM I T
D ?Z9 COMPUTATIONS I`'DESCRIPTION T OF
EA RUN-INLET RAIN RUNOFF INVERT
ELEVATIONS LENGTN SLOPE
FLOW
tIME
REMARKS
OFF'CA TIME FALL 0 12SHEEIOMTODR
AIN.
It
A COEF.
INCRE- ACCUM-MIN-IN C g
UPPER LOWER
END END FT.FT./
FT SEC.
INT POINT ACRES C MENT IiLA?
ED UTES
11 1Z)13
Z)3)4)5) (6)7)9 10
f-a?
4, .3 7.!ja.
o G.
4'
t.
4 G,' •4 c
3'.c,r i
ff 6'
1 f• 647.
4.z5 r'!4S
4 ?.S C43.
a e.
Y X19 t 6q lt
E'_
y L3
4z 9 C 34 •yz.
Qc A r z 1z, o4¢73
7 3vt3 7 rs t v
L v 5.I.
C.0 C4G . C
3•
tf
r-
34.3 5 ,`7 d t Z.
o
a _S S.
c .3
3
1 /6
Zo3.
67 fj 5_
6 C Ca.
5r E 3 c>
X34.
4r l•1+ i oq r Z 7. Z St3
c. -1A At G - IA
7 -
1 X36. C..
3t.o -u• (C.
c >/
j3 OS C_p 0
Z. 40
G .
E - /A i _
0„
u roc 4!
ro
I I I
E lev.
u
S' , D
es
i
gn Flood
ob.
ood Exceed Pr
e Over top Flood Exceed.
Prob. _
Elev. _.
Za`` kC f Base FloodI%
Exeeed.
Prob.
Dole ----
STATION'-jecl
C I c- U AVIW Controls
ain-IOOyr. Flood pt -
elev._
a {ev.__
DROLOGICAL DATA DesignA}
IW depth
TWolev.
IS 4 AC.Structures freq.
Shoulder elev. -
elay.
t°
RISK ASSESSMENT ADT _ __RISK
DISCHARGES USED
CFS Detours Available I73 l.'
a•
nv.
E1
0 Overtopping Stage
Management
Inv. El.''
O'sa L
CFSQ -- ----
Q
CFS Flood Plain
Criteria and Significant impact Orig.
Gr.Elev.---
0
CFS
CFS COMPUTATIONS
CONT.OUTLET
VELOCITY
E COh {bIENTS
Q HEADWATER
OUTLET CONTROL
ION.
ELEV.C.
M. Smooth
Treat.
CULVERT TYPEaSIZE Q. Q/
13 INLET CONT.
Ke do ; h FI
IiW
LSO IIW
OJVN /D
s6 r. 2 . 4 -Z.
96
I I I E lev.
u
S' , D
es
i
gn Flood
ob.
ood Exceed Pr
e Over top Flood Exceed.
Prob. _
Elev. _.
Za`` kC f
Base
FloodI%
Exeeed.
Prob.
S Uv
SED
CF 5
CF 5
CFS
GF S
Y PE S1ZE
Shawr .
S'
610V.
elegy • --•`
0
u
Or1q Gr. E\
ay.
COO. OUj\- tSY
End
WEIOC Ttoa
E CN.
SEss
R \sK AS
p,
Va \ \ob
O
rtop4`nq It
all
p \a \na S \9n11icantlmP °
c1
SF1QadCOMPUjAT \ON
Crttar \o an
NEApwA
EN CON
RpI.
OU.
EET
bo
t1 tSo
IlkONT
Ks
do
aye t1w°
taw f 13 Li 4ii
IZ a, 0
c
Or \q C `
Appendix 9D -1 LD -204 Stormwater Inlet Computations
LU -LU4
Rev. 6-
85 RTE PROJ s. {Luv., ' DATE a I ? ( ° OF
9-
P
3.
t
2e. '4""'
S
9 resu.•
f
SS L st s
n
E S a E 3. w cA `F fie. ate- o..•
L-• -
c, L u4 wcl s c. i c az cQ Z- U-+ E
1 of 1 - VDOT Drainage Manual
i v. t P2 - .s I N l-
2 .. , -• / - —
P -{
I .
Z X31 E - Z- } - - A
i
a v4 E - lA - Az
Sag Inlets Only
INLET
U
Q
Cf)
U U Ll lL J j U co
U
LL
CD
Q U)
LL
U
p%
O
W W LL
cn UT
Z rn co
w °Y Q
Q Q U O O U)
m w
C}
L.w
U U E
U '
U
n
U)d
3
cn
a
c c II
3
3
U)
w ¢
t-
U-
w
a
n
Q
U v r
F-U)Q C CO U)o n-9=W
Z Z d U w F-r p W
W Z U cn
z
0 d
x
U II
cu
JU
CL
d
a
C3 F
cl)U)C/)
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)16)17)18)19)20)21)22)23)24)H5)26)27)28)29)30)31)32)33)
REMARKS
3GT
a.w I I S?6S l,
oZ
4
Z.$
08 4,
o6
lu+
5
SN
A -ZA 1)
1-(
A
Z
D - 1 40 7S
A -ZC-DI -
t 6Z CIO
A3 r -d p ls 5 I
F•
2.
3 S `'
L}va
334 7
ZZ s !1
AZ 91 -3R Z• 1 a t
s 4 e S a. x4
Zrsl DI -3A 2,
S 9 6 l4 Z z 7
Zf(
I)E 71
3 '
2
sw,
i
S D-
I oh G 03 14-
t-4
Sec NTE.
4
63 Df Q Z S fir}4 136 bars A
E_
I I D 1•_i4 3 S 2 ZgS 07 oz,
8 4,
3 1 033 455r.
q f6a
3.
t 2e. '4""'
S 9 resu.•
f
SS L st s
n E S a E 3. w cA `F fie. ate- o..•
L-• -
c, L u4 wcl s c. i c az cQ Z- U-+ E
1 of 1 - VDOT Drainage Manual
i v. t P2 - .s I N l-
2 .. , -• / - — P -{
I .
Z X31 E - Z- } - -
A
i a
v4 E - lA - Az
FHWA urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Sag
Date: 05/12/2004
Project No.
Project Name.:
Computed by ,LIZ a3
r
Inlets on Sag: Grate Inlet
i
Roadway and Discharge Data
cross Slope
Sx Pavement Cross Slope
Sw Gutter Cross Slope
n manning's Coefficient
w Gutter width (ft)
a Gutter Depression (i
uniform
ft /ft) 0.0500
ft /ft) 0.0500
0.016
0.00
nch) 0.00
inlet Interception
Inlet Type 'Sag*-Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
T width of spread ft)2.83
WGR Grate Widt ft)2.50
L Grate Length (ft)2.50
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)0.142
d_curb Depth at Curb (ft)0.142
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs)1.200
FHWA Urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
inlets on sag
Date: 05/12/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
Computed by <<
Inlets on Sag: Grate Inlet 4
Roadway and Discharge Data [-
Cross slope
Sx Pavement Cross Slope
Sw Gutter Cross Slope
n Manning's Coefficient
w Gutter width (ft)
a Gutter Depression (i
uniform
ft /ft) 0.0500
ft /ft) 0.0500
0.016
0.00
nch) 0.00
inlet Interception
Inlet Type *Sage Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
T width of spread (ft)6.67
wGR Grate width (ft)2.50
L Grate Length (ft)2.50
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)0.334
d--curb Depth at Curb (ft)0.334
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs)4.340
FHWA Urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Sag
Date: 05/12/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
Computed by .
Inlets on Sag
Roadway and
A
Grate inlet
Discharge Data i
Cross slope
Sx Pavement Cross Slope (ft /ft)
Sw Gutter Cross slope (ft /ft)
n Manning's coefficient
w Gutter width (ft)
a Gutter Depression (inch)
inlet Interception
Uniform
0.0500
0.0500
0.016
0.00
0.00
Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
9.22
2.50
2.50
0.461
0.461
7. 050(CVP-Gl= S ( «
Inlet Type *Sag*
T width of Spread (ft)
WGR Grate Width (ft)
L Grate Length (ft)
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)
d_curb Depth at Curb (ft)
Qi intercepted Flow (cfs)
Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
9.22
2.50
2.50
0.461
0.461
7. 050(CVP-Gl= S ( «
FHWA urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Sag
Date: 05/12/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
computed by ,."ti -ZC=
Inlets on Sag: Grate Inlet
Roadway and Discharge Data
cross slope uniform
Sx Pavement cross Slope (ft /ft) 0.0500
Sw Gutter cross slope (ft /ft) 0.0500
n manning's coefficient 0.016
w Gutter width (ft) 0.00
a Gutter Depression (inch) 0.00
Inlet Interception
Inlet type *Sag*Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
T width of spread (ft)3.29
WGR Grate width (ft)2.50
L Grate Length (ft)2.50
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)0.164
d_curb Depth at curb (ft)0.164
Qi intercepted Flow (cfs)1.500
FHWA urban Drainage Design Program,HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
inlets on Grade
Date: 05/12/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
computed by .
inlets on Grade: curb Opening Inlet L _,
Roadway and Discharge Data z •5
cross Slope Uniform
S Longitudinal Slope (ft /ft)0.0500
Sx Pavement cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0200
Sw Gutter cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0200
n Manning's coefficient 0.016
w Gutter width (ft)0.00
a Gutter Depression (inch)1.00
Q Discharge (cfs)0.72.0
T width of spread (ft)4.71
Gutter Flow
Eo Gutter Flow Ratio 0.000
d Depth of Flow (ft)0.09
V Average velocity (ft /sec)3.24
Inlet Interception
inlet Type curb-Opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft)2.51
L curb- Opening Length (ft)2.50
e Inlet Efficiency 1.000
Qi intercepted Flow (cfs)0.720
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs)0.000
FHWA Urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Sag
Date: 05/12/2004
Project No.
Project Name.:
Computed by .
Inlets on Sag: Grate Inlet -6F_ -ZACO
Roadway and Discharge Data bl t
Cross slope
Sx Pavement Cross Slope
Sw Gutter Cross slope
n Manning's Coefficient
w Gutter width (ft)
a Gutter Depression (i
uniform
ft /ft) 0.0500
ft /ft) 0.0500
0.016
0.00
nch) 0.00
Inlet Interception
Inlet Type `Sag''Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
T width of Spread (ft)3.20
WGR Grate width (ft)2.50
L Grate Length (ft)2.50
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)0.160
d_curb Depth at Curb (ft)0.160
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs)1.440
FHWA urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Grade
Date: 05/13/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
Computed by .
Inlets on Grade: Curb Opening Inlet e-( A(()
Roadway and Discharge Data - ,l•? a (-~P l
Inlet Interception
Inlet Type Curb - Opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft) 19.76
L Curb - opening Length (ft) 14.00
e Inlet Efficiency 0.891
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs) 1.052
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs) 0.128
Cross Slope uniform
S Longitudinal Slope (ft /ft)0.0770
Sx Pavement Cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0208
SW Gutter Cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0208
n manning's Coefficient 0.016
w Gutter width (ft)1.00
a Gutter Depression (inch)1.00
1.180QDischarge (cfs)
T width of Spread (ft)5.10
Gutter Flow
Eo Gutter Flow Ratio 0.441
d Depth of Flow (ft)0.11
V Average velocity (ft /sec)4.35
Inlet Interception
Inlet Type Curb - Opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft) 19.76
L Curb - opening Length (ft) 14.00
e Inlet Efficiency 0.891
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs) 1.052
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs) 0.128
FHwA urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Grade
Date: 05/13/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
Computed by .
Inlets on Grade: Curb Opening Inlet A()
Roadway and Discharge Data , L- 14"
Cross Slope
S Longitudinal slope (ft /ft)
Sx Pavement Cross Slope (ft /ft)
sw Gutter cross slope (ft /ft)
n manning's Coefficient
w Gutter width (ft)
a Gutter Depression (inch)
Q Discharge (cfs)
T width of Spread (ft)
Gutter Flow
Eo Gutter Flow Ratio
d Depth of Flow (ft)
V Average velocity (ft /sec)
Inlet Interception
uniform
0.0770
0.0208
0.0208
0.016
1.00
1.00
1.920 CC-L
6.13
0.378
0.13
4.92
Inlet Type Curb - Opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft) 25.67
L Curb - Opening Length (ft) 14.00
e Inlet Efficiency 0.758
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs) 1.455
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs) 0.465
FHWA urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on sag
Date: 05/13/2004
Project No. .
Project Name.:
computed by .
Inlets on sag: Grate Inlet
Roadway and Discharge Data
cross slope
Sx Pavement cross Slope (ft /ft)
Sw Gutter cross slope (ft /ft)
n manning's coefficient
w Gutter width (ft)
a Gutter Depression (inch)
Inlet Interception
uniform
0.0500
0.0500
0.016
0.00
0.00
Inlet Type *Sag`Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
T width of spread (ft)1.60
WGR Grate width (ft)2.50
L Grate Length (ft)2.50
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)0.080
d_curb Depth at curb (ft)0.080
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs)0.510
STORM SEWER DESIGN
t & D Z29 COMPUTATIONS
ROLY E PROD
COUNTY DISTRI
DESCRIPTION SHEET -OF
AREA RUN- INLET RAIN
DRAIN. OFF CA TIME FALL
FROM TO A COEF.
INCRE- ACCUM- MIN-
IN.
HFZ
POINT POINT ACRES G MENT ULATED UTES
RUNOFF
1
INVERT
ELEVATIONS LENliTH SLOPE OIA.
CAPA
CITY VEL.
FLOW
TIME
REMARK
11
R SENOR FT.FT./
FT.IN.CF S.F.
P.S.SEC.S.
1)Z)3)4)5)6)7)8)9 10 11 121 13 14)15 16 17 18
a ov5 l/r.
C c.'z.c
rc fs l
f
o
630, -2
G...
2
GUS.
u
c i7
034
Ca 7-
z.
IZ -Z4 .7 Gzz.r3S.
y9 33
C'
7.
3
T3 - t c .I L
2. 1 64o - 3 C_ 3 . 4a 5, Z 1 j z
17
r q<,7 F
3 g z-8-
1 C-
4 U 8 , a
I A-
OUN-
Y „'"".. A• VEL• T M REMpRK5
CI
TI
wER DE tNVER I.
ENGtN St.
FP.
s. SEC.
1 a
ORM SE
cC c.
fs•
17
0
5 RAIN RQOf EEEVAtt
fS.
l 1N•
16
OMpOTA -T _ fIWL UPPER
R fT• 14 ) 1)pWE
229 END
Off CA c .f. S. Etm 1 Z) 1
4R A „ti• CAF tNCRE” UWSED
ENT
U'
IER
io G
M PANT
pCREg t.
f
it
IT
t
t 04
4- {
t ` ' q••?
Ida IQ" l
32.
E
CA
IA
10 C ,
Osit
L '
n HYDROLOGICAL DATA: `
r
D.
A.= l.`'
i
AC.
Shoulder
1 _ _ elev. LL
Cover
DISCHARGES USED RISK ASSESSMENT I ADT______ —_
0 CFS Detours Available ,Length_______ --
0 CFS Overlapping Stage
0 CFS Flood Plain Management Inv. EI. 4 ,OK • So 18 Inv. E 1.
L CFS Criteria and Significant Impact c dd <2
q Ori GcElev.'
Orig.
Gr. Elev. L = g
0 -
2 CFS
HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CONT. OUTLET End
CtAVERT TYPE B
SIZE Q Q/
B INLET CONT. OUTLET CONTROL HW. VELOCITY COMMENTS
Treat.
HW /D HW Ke do ho H LSo HW ELEV. CM. Smooth
a7S _zos .7 ?•7 2 ,, ?.75 t2- es _ , , f ;;.`_•( tEn
co
Ln I 1c-
b -cif{ 6r-
1 Design Flood Exceed.
Prob. Elev.
C I' f! F `
4 ' /
Overtop Flood Exceed.
Prob. Elev.
Base Flood 1% Exceed. Prob. Elev.
Plan Sheet No. Designer Sheet — of
Rev. Date Dole
AHW Controls STATION: _
100 yr. Flood plain elev.
Design AHW depth elev.
Structures elev.
ire q. T W ele
SL1MI.
iG'' -+crnnn
e *inn-
nn.. +e•
rojecl Plan Sheet No. Designer Sheet of
N
Ue «,`1 " C l `. L, u
Rev. Dale Dale
N
HYDROLOGICAL DATA: i AHW Controls STATION: _
S
c D.
A. _ AC. IOOyr. Flood plain elev.
Design AHW depth elev.
Structures elev.
f T W I
IL hA - - —
Shoulder
elev.
1
1.
t-'
co
u
HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CONT. OUTLET
End
CULVERT TYPE aSIZE Q Q/
B
INLET CONT. OUTLET CONTROL HW. VELOCITY
COMMENTS
HW /D HW Ke do ho
7
H LSo HW ELEV. CM. Smooth
Treat.
7z 8G K
Design Flood Exceed. Prob. E lev. _
Overtop Flood Exceed. Prob. Elev. —
Base Flood 1 %Exceed.
Prob.
Elev.—
Skew ° Cover ' \DISCHARGES USED RISK ASSESSMENT ADT
0 c -' = 7 ' S CFS Detours Available ,Length
Q CFS Overlapping Stage
0 CFS Flood Plain Management
Inv. El. (az. So = - /G C "0 L CFS Criteria and Significant Impact Inv. EI.
Q 2 CFS Orig.
Gr.Elev. 6 63 L= Qrig.
Gr.Elev. 66u
1
1.
t-'
co
u
HEADWATER COMPUTATIONS CONT. OUTLET
End
CULVERT TYPE aSIZE Q
Q/
B INLET CONT. OUTLET CONTROL HW. VELOCITY
COMMENTS
HW /D HW Ke do ho
7
H LSo HW ELEV. CM. Smooth
Treat.
7z 8G K
Design Flood Exceed. Prob. E lev. _
Overtop Flood Exceed. Prob. Elev. —
Base Flood 1 %
Exceed.
Prob. Elev.—
DA
Fob L $
5
O N o NN C>
CY
F
Virginia Department of TranSDortation
Mobilitv Management Division
2002
Annual Averaoe Daily Traffic Volume Estimates By Section of Route
Albemarle Maintenance Area
Route
Albemarle Count
Length AADT QA 4Tire Bus
Truck----------
2Axle 3 +Axle 1Trail 2Trail
QC
Peak
Hour
QK
Dir
Factor
AAWDT QW Year
FR - $52
250 Rockfish GapTrnpk 0.56 7100 N 95%0%3% 0% 1%0%N 0.097 N 0.683 7000 N 2002
1 - 64 Near Yancey Mills
250 Rockfish GapTrnpk 1.69 8600 G 96%0%2% 1% 1%0%F 0.088 F 0.567 8500 G 2002
1 SR 240 Miller School '
250 Rockfish Gap Trnpk 2.97 5300 G 96%0%2% 1% 1%0%F 0.081 F 0.634 5300 G 2002
SR 240 Three Notchd Rd
U50250 Ivy Rd 3.29 10000 G 96%0%2% 1% 1%0%F 0.087 F 0.708 10000 G 2002
02 - 637 Woods Rd
250 Ivy Rd 3.80 14000 G 96%0%2% 1% 1%0%F 0.086 F 0.828 13000 G 2002
t,t i US 29; Bus US 250 Ivy Rd
250 1.86 40000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.099 F 0.53 43000 G 2002
WCL Charlottesville
City of Charlottesville
WCL Charlottesville
250 0.35 35000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.095 F 0.530 38000 G 2002
It i US 29, Emmet St 1 --
0.32 22000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.100 F 0.535 24000 G 2002
104 3431 -R
250 0.42 40000 G 98%0%1 % 0 0%0%F 0.089 F 0.541 44000 G 2002
11.1.1 i Dairy Rd
250 0.60 39000 A 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%C 0.102 A 0.548 42000 A 2002
F m i Ru Ave E int
250 0.33 38000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.09 F 0.531 41000 G 2002
It McIntire Rd
250 0.27 34000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.085 F 0.507 36000 G 2002
Perk St
F250250 t 0.32 37000 G 98%0%1 % 0% 0%0%F 0.085 F 0.515 40000 G 2002
im
Locust Ave
250 Long St 0.43 34000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.083 F 0.535 37000 G 2002
BUJ US 250 High St
250 Long St 0.06 34000 N 98%0%1 % 0% 0%0%N 0.083 N 0.535 37000 N 2002
ECL Charlottesville
Albemarle County
ECL Charlottesville
250 Richmond Rd 0.20 30000 N 98%0%1 % 0% 0%0%N 0.088 N 0.676 33000 N 2002
Sic 20 Ston Point Rd
U50250 Richmond Rd 1.64 30000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.088 F 0.676 33000 G 2002
1 -64 East of Charlottesville
f 250 Richmond Rd 2.16 24000 G 93%0%3% 3% 1%0%F 0.092 F 0.72 24000 G 2002
SR 22 Louise Rd
250 Richmond Rd 4.40 10000 G 92%1%3% 2% 1%0%F 0.091 F 0.720 10000 G 2002
Fluvanna County Line
Bus US 250; US 29
250 0.85 14000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.091 F 0.622 15000 G 2002
WCL Charlottesville
City of Charlottesville
Bus WCL Charlottesville
250 Ivy Rd 0.50 15000 G 98%0%1% 0% 0%0%F 0.075 F 0.531 16000 G 2002
Bus t. 1 Emmet St
250 University Ave 0.40 18000 G 95%0%4% 0% 0%0%F 0.071 F 0.677 19000 G 2002
I- Combined Traffic:0 G 0.071 F 0.677 0 G
Chancellor St
5/14/2003
From: Yadira Amarante
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:37 AM
To: Brent Nelson [bnelson @roudabush.com] (E -mail)
Subject: Faulconer
Brent,
Staff, along with VDOT, re- measured pavement widths of Morgantown
Road. I think I quoted you a pavement width of 16' in my letter the other
day. Of course, you may want to measure yourself, but I thought I'd clear
up my end of the record.
Thanks - yadira
Location Size
Mailbox 3735 18'
Just east of Tilman Road 21'
Mailbox 3355 20 1 /z `
Just east of Business Park 19 feet 10 inches
Just west of the School Western 19 feet 3 inches
most access
Mailbox 3115 20'
Mailbox 2907 19'
Yadira Amarante, Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (804) 296 -5823 ext. 3297
Fax: (804) 972 -4012
email: yamarantC@albemarle.orq
FHWA Urban Drainage Design Program,
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Grade
Date: 0710712004 .
HY -22
Project No. .
Project Name.:
computed by .
Inlets on Grade: Curb opening Inlet
Roadway and Discharge Data
Gutter Flow
Eo Gutter Flow Ratio 0.499
d Depth of Flow (ft) 0.09
V Average velocity (ft /sec) 4.71
Inlet Interception
Inlet Type Curb - Opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft) 19.23
L Curb - Opening Length (ft) 20.00
e Inlet Efficiency 1.000
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs) 0.905 -
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs) 0.000
CD
Cross Slope Uniform
S Longitudinal Slope (ft /ft)0.0770
Sx Pavement Cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0200
Sw Gutter Cross slope (ft /ft)0.0200
n Mann - ing's Coefficient 0.013
w Gutter width (ft)1.00
a Gutter Depression (inch)1.00
Q Discharge (cfs)0.905
T width of spread (ft)4.38
Gutter Flow
Eo Gutter Flow Ratio 0.499
d Depth of Flow (ft) 0.09
V Average velocity (ft /sec) 4.71
Inlet Interception
Inlet Type Curb - Opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft) 19.23
L Curb - Opening Length (ft) 20.00
e Inlet Efficiency 1.000
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs) 0.905 -
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs) 0.000
CD
FHWA Urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Grade
Date: 07/07/2004
IL
Project No.
r. )
Project Name.:
computed by .
Inlets on Grade: curb opening inlet
Roadway and Discharge Data
cross Slope uniform
S Longitudinal slope (ft /ft)0.0800
Sx Pavement cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0200
Sw Gutter cross Slope (ft /ft)0.0200
n manning's coefficient 0.013
w Gutter width (ft)1.00
a Gutter Depression (inch)1.00
Q Discharge (cfs)0.136
T width of spread (ft)2.14
Gutter Flow
Eo Gutter Flow Ratio 0.814
d Depth of Flow (ft)0.04
V Average velocity (ft /sec)2.98
Inlet Interception
inlet Type curb-opening
LT Length for 100% Inteception (ft)7.09
L curb- Opening Length (ft)6.00
e Inlet Efficiency 0.966
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs)0.131
Qb By -pass Flow (cfs)0.005 rt
FHwA urban Drainage Design Program, HY -22
Drainage of Highway Pavements
Inlets on Sag
Date: 07/07/2004
Project No. {
Project Name.: J
Computed by .
Inlets on sag: Grate Inlet
Roadway and Discharge Data
Cross Slope uniform
Sx Pavement Cross Slope (ft /ft) 0.0400
sw Gutter Cross Slope (ft /ft) 0.0400
n manning's Coefficient 0.013
w Gutter width (ft) 0.00
a Gutter Depression (inch) 0.00
Inlet Interception
4l,C_
Inlet Type *Sag*Parallel Bar P -1 -1/8
T width of spread (ft)0.86
wGR Grate width (ft)2.50
L_Grate Length (ft)2.50
d_ave Depth of Flow (ft)0.034
d_curb Depth at curb (ft)0.034
Qi Intercepted Flow (cfs)0.140
4l,C_
0 endix A LD -204 Stormwater Inlet Computations I
SHEET
Rev. 6-
85 RTE PROD _ DATE `" OF
V
v
Sag Inlets Only
INLET
v L U)IL
VDOT Drainage Manual
A
v\
C
Q U J
1 U L
Z W n_
W O
W
a
W
a c Z U
QpZ
ED w
U U Z U b-c 3`C a W p i U
Z
O Q to Z L v)II CO E W
u'
n.
Q
U
af
W O Q
U
O
W N n a
v
W
F-
cY
Q tY
J U D CL'
U
F-r-
U
W
W
Z U a
C)
C II it 0 J a
F-
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)16)17)18)19)20)21)22)23)24)25)26)27)28)29)30)31)32)33)REMARKS
iA
t Z.
aJ SAS
A 1
JI — ?a 2•F v g 2
J ` w
Z
1;
a3 l Z q
9
I of 1 VDOT Drainage Manual
Av\
r - '+
mn -s -- a `-``. 4 .:.