The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP200700078 Review Comments 2007-08-31i d. 1t V f 11 I' County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: David Pennock, Current Development planning review From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 31 Aug 2007 Subject: NGIC Expansion (SDP200700078) Before Engineering can recommend preliminary approval to the site plan, the following comments must be addressed: 1. Please show more accurate existing topography. There is an existing RCP draining from the edge of the woods towards the existing pond (both outfalls from the NGIC drain to it). The existing topography also does not appear to include the existing NGIC development or grading to install an access road to the pond dam. Please show accurate drainage areas. 2. Please show more accurate final topography. There is a 20 foot discrepancy in places between existing contour lines and final contour lines. Show all necessary grading or retaining walls needed, etc. Please show proposed grading for the road extension. Show proposed drainage pipes and structures needed for the roadway. 3. Please provide all needed easements (or at a minimum for preliminary approval, a letter of intent) from the United States of America for grading, drainage easements, use of the pond, etc. A drainage easement will be needed from both proposed outfalls of the NGIC expansion. Drainage easements should be shown correctly over ditches and drainage structures. 4. Please provide removal rate calculations. Please show where you propose to install a riser structure on the existing pond. The plans specify an existing riser, but we could not locate it on site. Please verify whether or not the pond has an existing riser structure. 5. Please show the stream buffers on the plans (buffer on North Fork Rivanna River). The following comments will need to be addressed before final site plan approval: 6. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% grade in any direction. 7. The dumpster locations do not appear to be accessible by garbage trucks. 7 :J t_ C `> M NI '() N tip' F A [ ,T J ( _XF `Y I 1 N '6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701 VirginiaDOT.org David S. Ekern, P.E. COMMISSIONER September 5, 2007 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments September 6`", 2007 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the September 6 2007 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2007 -00075 Mount Calvary Baptist Church (Megan Yanialos The speed on route 738 is 25 mph. 280 feet of sight distance needs to be shown on the plan for the entrance. The proposed entrance needs to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and VDOT's Road Design Manual. SDP - 2007 -00078 NGIC Expansion (David Pennock) Road and drainage plans need to be provided for the extension of Boulders Road. The plan needs to address the need for a right turn lane into the site. The plan needs to show the proffered improvements to route 29. The entrance to the site at Boulders Road needs to be designed in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways and VDOT's Road Design Manual. SDP - 2007 -00079 Verizon Tier II (Gerald Gotabu) Sight distance needs to be shown on route 53 at the intersection of Gobblers Ridge Road. SUB - 2007 -00282 Mechums Bluff (Megan Yaniglos) The sight distance easement will need to be cleared and graded if necessary. The posted speed on route 637 is 35 mph and the corresponding sight distance is 390 feet. Road and drainage plans will be needed. YEAR'S O 1RANSP£1RTA7CON ERCEI.LEPiCE 1 4 3 6 2 0 0 6 The intersection features and treatment types need to be evaluated. SUB - 2007 -00286 Gillespie Development (Patrick Lawrence) Sight distances need to be shown. Road and drainage plans will be needed. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Residency Program Manager VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 - 293 -0011 cc Allan Schuck, Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District September 6, 2007 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975 -0224 TO: David Pennock Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: NGIC Expansion AJ (o w ,• i W V W E a 'w T' / A o w R s l a rn m w A `n A, n w n SC n N s W N s m C0 n rn co 0 CD - W Opp' / f - ;Y i + 0: - is 6 w - vmotir Q o o w W A Jm 9 a Z7 O I ' C _ J C - n C N uI p n N N W P V s () co fi 7 W 7 n m 'a ' - O N / CP 4B oo m W O W 4 C ID fv W wtl V Nm OA 41 n y£ n n n m , CI NWN Ii v O1 Q (J I \ C7 .. rW „ N C) n I` \ N n ( m 1 L.7 C) m co w co co s 1 lu 0 J W N n J n a N s N n USDA United States Natural Department of Resources Agriculture Conservation Service Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District 434 - 975 -0224 Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: NGIC Expansion Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 2C Albemarle fine sandy loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 2D Albemarle fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Albemarle is a moderately steep to steep, shallow, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is fine sandy loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 13D Catoctin very stony silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Catoctin is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 5 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. it has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 7s. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 9/7/07 flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 280 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Elioak is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately slow. It has a low available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Fluvanna is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is slow. It has a moderate available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 3e. The Virginia soil management group is not assigned. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Very limited loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 2D Albemarle fine sandy Very limited loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt Very limited loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Somewhat limited slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes, severely eroded 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 9 /7/07 Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Very limited loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 2D Albemarle fine sandy Very limited loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt Very limited loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Somewhat limited slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes, severely eroded 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Not hydric loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 2D Albemarle fine sandy Not hydric loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt Not hydric loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes, severely eroded 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 9/7/07 Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth: 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 2D Albemarle fine sandy 1.5 loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt 1.5 loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 4.5 percent slopes, severely eroded 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 2D Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt Moderate loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 28C3 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes, severely eroded 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 4 9/7/07 Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 2C Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes 2D Albemarle fine sandy Moderate loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt High loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent High slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 2803 Elioak clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes, severely eroded 32C Fluvanna silt loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Low percent slopes Thomas Jetterson S WCD 5 9/7/07 L• .af :l.. LLR: County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: David Pennock, Current Development planning review From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 01 Oct 2007 Subject: NGIC Expansion (SDP200700078) Engineering cannot recommend approval to the preliminary site plan; the following comments have not been addressed: Please show more accurate final topography. There is a 20 foot discrepancy in places between existing contour lines and final contour lines. Show all necessary grading or retaining walls needed, etc. Please show proposed grading for the road extension. Show proposed drainage pipes and structures needed for the roadway. Rev]: There are several areas where parking exceeds 5 %. In addition, grading on the northeast side of the property is very close to the zoning buffer area and grading on the southwest side of the property is within the zoning buffer area. Please address these concerns prior to preliminary plan approval. There are several proposed grading errors: grading northeast of the future residential phase — elevation 484 is labeled 482; also, there is a saddle point near this area and the proposed grading there is incorrect. There are erroneous grade lines between proposed elevations 494 and 496 is the parking area northeast of the phase I building. There is no grading shows: at the end of the proposed road. Also, please show match lines on Sheets 3 and 3A. Several of the proposed areas are missing. 3. Please provide all needed easements (or at a minimum for preliminary approval, a letter of intent) from the United States of America for grading, drainage easements, use of the pond, etc. A drainage easement will be needed from both proposed outfalls of the NGIC expansion. Drainage easements should be shown correct lover ditches and drainage structures. Rev]: comments not addressed. a /fil$d 4. Please provide removal rate calculations. Please show where you propose to install a riser structure on the existing pond. The plans specify an existing riser, but we could not locate it on site. Please verify whether or not the pond has an existing riser structure. Revl: The proposed SWM facility will require an approved variation of the ZMA. As shown, drainage area 3 remains untreated. This section of the roadway must be treated for water quality and stormwater detention must be provided (as well as an adequate drainage concept, the proposed plan shows no drainage structures capturing this area and it appears runoff will be draining across the roadway). The removal rate calculations are incorrect, as they include areas not draining to the facility. The removal rate calculation should be as follows: Drainage Area: 13.25 acres; Ipre: 20 %; Ipost 67 %, Removal Rate: 65 %. The following comments will need to be addressed before final site plan approval: Albemarle C- qty Conummity Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 6. Parking areas cannot exceed 5% grade in any direction. Revl: This issue is significant enough that it should be addressed at the preliminary plan phase. See comment number 2 above. 7. The dumpster locations do not appear to be accessible by garbage trucks. Rev]: The dumpster location appears to be within the parking area for phase II. During phase I, a temporary dumpster pad location may be required (to be shown at the final site plan for phase I). Service Auth4rit iwj& "i ,,iivJ January 24, 2008 Mr. Dillard H. Horton Chief, Real Estate Office Department of the Army Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers Fort Norfolk, 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510 -1096 Re: National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) Infrastructure Dedication Dear Mr. Horton: We are in receipt of your letter, dated January 11, 2008, addressing the dedication of water and sewer mains along Boulders Road in Albemarle County. Your letter confirms our understanding that the Department of Army is proceed- ing with the dedication and that this federal process may take some months. Within your letter, you have also agreed that connections to this infrastructure will not occur until the dedications have been completed. By copy of this letter, the ACSA is informing the County of Albemarle's Department of Planning and Community Development that, we are waiving our requirement to receive these dedicated utilities, prior to granting approval to the final site plan. This condition was expressed in an email, dated December 13, 2007, from Mr. Peter Gorham, P.E., Director of Engineering of the ACSA to Mr. David Pennock. As we discussed earlier today, while a Bill of Sale may be provided by the Department of the Army for this existing infrastructure, the ACSA will not be re- quired to submit any payment. 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org We appreciate your cooperation and trust this letter will assist you in ob-taining the necessary approvals from the County of Albemarle for your ro'ect.You have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. p If GWF:dmg cc: David Pennock, County of AlbemarlePeterGorham, P.E., ACSA030201NGIC012408 Sincerely, Gary W. Fern, P.E. Executive Director RLPLYTO ATTIN17pN OF: Real Estate Office Mr. Gary Fenn Director Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Fenn: January 11, 2008 J11, 7 5 2003 I am writing with regards to our phone conversation on January 10 2008. The GovernmenthasconstructedwaterandsewerlinestoservetheNationalGroundIntelligenceCenter (NGIC)site at Boulders Road and Seminole Trail, Albemarle County, Vir The Army has actuallystartedtheprivatizationprocessbyorderingmeetsandboundssurveystosupportthegrantingofutilityeasements. We are proceeding with the process of obtaining Annny approvals needed toprivatizebothsystems. Through this process neasementswillbegrantedandowership of thepipes /lines will be transferred. Once we receive the recorded surveys, our approval authority and the other iired byyourauthorityforthededicationofthewaterandsewersystems, we plan to grantcasemetennsrequired provide a bill of sale for both utility lines and any other its and improvements that slake up the twoUtilitysystemslocatedontheNGICsite. It is understood that there will be no connections to oruseoftheGovernmentownedlinesuntilsuchtimeastheyareprivatized. That privatizationProcesswillnotdelaytheconstructionofanofficebuildingonprivatepropertyadjacenttotheGovenvnentownedproperty. That office building will be leased by GSA in direct support to tineArrnymission. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to coordinating these actandgettingthisdedicationcompletedasquicklyaspossible. ivities Sincerely, Dillard H. Horton DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT NORFOLK, 803 FRONT STREET NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510 -1096 Chief Real Estate Office Enclosure Page 1 of 1 Pete Gorham From: Pete Gorham [pgorham @serviceauthority.org] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:53 PM To: David Pennock Cc: Wendell Wood Subject: NGIC Expansion SDP -07 -138 We have reviewed the site plan titled "NGIC Expansion Phases I & II, dated October 31, 2007 and we offer the following comments: 1). Final water and sewer construction drawings are required for our review and approval, including the connection to the existing water and sewer mains. Construction drawings shall be submitted directly to the ACSA and must be approved prior to us granting approval to the final site plan. 2). Show the connection to the existing water and sewer mains on the site plan. 3). Dedication and acceptance of the existing water and sewer mains along Boulders Road shall be completed prior to the ACSA granting approval to the final site plan. 4). This fall the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) directed their consultant, Hazen and Sawyer to conduct an analysis of the Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant to verify the capacity of the treatment facility. The plant is currently permitted for a flow rate of 200,000 gallons per day (gpd) and is treating an average influent flow of 120,000 gpd. The analysis determined that the strength of the wastewater has increased significantly over the original design value of the plant; and the flow entering the plant varies significantly over the course of the day with peak flows of up to 4 to 6 times the average flow. The plant is currently operated with one -half of the secondary treatment volume dedicated to flow equalization to dampen the high strength wastewater loading and the hydraulic spikes. As a result, Hazen & Sawyer concluded that the plant capacity in this configuration is limited to 120,000 gpd. Therefore the plant is currently at its limiting capacity. At this time no additional sewer flow can be accepted into the Camelot Plant. The ACSA and RWSA are working closely and expeditiously to make improvements to enable the plant to operate at the level it is permitted, until such time as the Camelot Wastewater Treatment Plant can be replaced by a regional pump station. At this time the ACSA and RWSA do not know the exact timeline when the improvements will be approved and modifications completed. Once items 1, 2 and 3 listed above are completed, the ACSA is agreeable to approving the final site plan subject to the understanding by the applicant that no flow can be accepted into the Camelot Plant until modifications noted above are completed and operational. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks. Pete Gorham 12/17/2007