Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700104 Review Comments 2007-08-311 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. q.l Y " F'+, 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 Yaniglos) 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. YEARS DF TRAl1SR4RTATtOiY E7(CELLEHCE 1 6 Z (3 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 v W ' _ gas o° lam \•' mL u \- W mA n A J s w o n ol I I co s w Q O N N Q) CD n t< t w co nv x W co J J J ii W .E w m 8 W 6 .a: _ _ n i W O o I Z. LO w B m ( m m w W _41 i X n J 7 ( L N m O C C m 5 A I b m A W m / kC O C7 w w Dm CAF I , O m w I n5O WAVwm w \ W w A N v W n O ° n N n W W "N v 1 o w C7 po W ° i N o W ow a N LZ 1 W m co W O W \ \ V W v I m 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: 28C3 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 Jefferson 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 28C3 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 Jefferson S WCD 5 9/7/07 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: 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. Revl: 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 fixture 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 shown at the end of the proposed road. Also, please show match lines oil 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 y, ditches and drainage structures. Rev]: comments not addressed. 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. Rev]: The proposed SWM facilitJ will require an approved variation of tie 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 Ccrrty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 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. 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 IL During phase I, a temporary dumpster pad location may be required (to be shown at the final site plan for phase I). 9 r. E f1. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: LDS Church on Airport Road Plan preparer: Basil Finnegan, Blackwell Eng. [basil a)blackwellengineering.com] Owner or rep.: John Griffin, Zobrist Law Group [jgriffin (n)zoblaw.com] LDS Church, Bruce Hardy [419 London Ct Ruckersville, VA 22968] Plan received date: 09 Oct 2007 Date of comments: 23 Oct 2007 Reviewer: Jonathan Sharp Starting June 1, the new County Engineering Design Manual came into effect. All plans are reviewed per Design Manual checklist, which is available online on the County Website. New notes for construction, streets, E &S, and SWM are also required, and the applicable notes needed for these plans are attached following plan comments (and are also located in the Design Manual). County notes must be shown verbatim on the plans. Any additional notes on the plans should be separate from the County notes. A. Application information 1. Please provide a completed copy of the standard stonnwater maintenance agreement and fee for recordation. B. Existing conditions information 2. Please provide accurate current existing topography. There are areas located near the proposed pond where 1' grade lines are missing. 3. Please include a benchmark location and elevation for topography. 4. The plans indicate a 100' stream buffer on the north end of the project. There is no Albemarle County stream buffer in this area. If this is a USGS stream or buffer, disturbance may require approval from the Corps or DEQ. C. Proposed plan view information 5. Proposed disturbance of existing critical slopes requires a critical slopes waiver from the Planning Commission. [per 18- 4.2.6c] Please provide proposed topography at a minimum 2' contour interval. Please show the Albemarle County general construction notes on the plans [per DM]. D. Stormwater management plan 8. Stormwater facilities may be oversized for future development. However, Stormwater Management will have to be verified at the time that future site plans are submitted. (If any SWM requirements change, future plans will have to be in accord with the latest standards.) 9. For proposed and existing drainage area maps, please label coefficients and time of concentration used for each drainage area. 10. Please provide a plan view of the stormwater facility at a scale of 1": 20' or 1": 30'. 11. Please provide Albemarle County general stormwater notes [per DM] 12. Please show the location of stormwater management easements around the proposed facility. Easements should encompass 100 -year WSE area, all structures and embankments, and access to the riser and forebay.) 13. For the principle spillway, please specify trash racks over all controls to prevent clogging. Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 14. The following is required for a retention pond with 4xWQV: a. 15% of WQV is 1.5' deep or less b. 15% of WQV is between 1.5' to 2' deep c. 70% of WQV is between 2' to 6' deep d. a 10 -15' wide and 1 -1.5' deep aquatic bench e. at least 3 species of aquatic plants are used 15. Please show vehicle access roads to the riser structure and forebay weir of the pond. The following is required for maintenance access roads: a. access 10' wide minimum and 20% slope maximum b. slope over 10% requires gravel surface 16. Please provide a detention computation summary for the facility. An example is shown below: 17. The routing calculations do not appear to use the calculated critical durations. 18. Please provide a stage- storage (elevation vs. storage volume) table with water quality volume requirements computed for the retention pond. 19. A Stormwater bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. E. Erosion control plan 20. Please provide the Albemarle County erosion control notes [per DM]. 21. Please show the Temporary Stablization (TS) symbol on the plans. 22. Please show a location for a parking and staging area and a stockpile area. These areas should be located within the limits of disturbance. 23. Culvert inlet protection should not be shown for the principle spillway in the pond. 24. The following comments refer to the sediment basin: a. The basin needs an adequate riser structure to dewater dry storage for a 6 -hour drawdown time. b. Please provide adequate dry storage. The current basin design provides no dry storage. c. A trash rack/anti -vortex device is required. d. Safety fence and signs stating "danger, quick sand, do not enter" are required around the sediment basin. 25. Please provide a paved construction entrance detail. 26. It does not appear that stormwater channel (A) needs to be constructed at this time, as it is not capturing any developed or disturbed area. Stormwater Conveyance Channels should be denoted with the appropriate VESCH symbol (SCC). 27. An E &S bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. Drainage Pre-Post - Area Dev Dev Routed Pond 2 -year storm 12 acres 12.9 cfs 43.9 cfs 11.4 cfs Pond 10 -year storm 12 acres 17.1 cfs 56.8 cfs 14.9 cfs 17. The routing calculations do not appear to use the calculated critical durations. 18. Please provide a stage- storage (elevation vs. storage volume) table with water quality volume requirements computed for the retention pond. 19. A Stormwater bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. E. Erosion control plan 20. Please provide the Albemarle County erosion control notes [per DM]. 21. Please show the Temporary Stablization (TS) symbol on the plans. 22. Please show a location for a parking and staging area and a stockpile area. These areas should be located within the limits of disturbance. 23. Culvert inlet protection should not be shown for the principle spillway in the pond. 24. The following comments refer to the sediment basin: a. The basin needs an adequate riser structure to dewater dry storage for a 6 -hour drawdown time. b. Please provide adequate dry storage. The current basin design provides no dry storage. c. A trash rack/anti -vortex device is required. d. Safety fence and signs stating "danger, quick sand, do not enter" are required around the sediment basin. 25. Please provide a paved construction entrance detail. 26. It does not appear that stormwater channel (A) needs to be constructed at this time, as it is not capturing any developed or disturbed area. Stormwater Conveyance Channels should be denoted with the appropriate VESCH symbol (SCC). 27. An E &S bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY FINAL PLANS NOTES General Construction Notes 1. Prior to any construction within any existing public right -of -way, including connection to any existing road, a permit shall be obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). This plan as drawn may not accurately reflect the requirements of the permit. Where any discrepancies occur the requirements of the permit shall govern. 2. All materials and construction methods shall conform to current specifications and standards of VDOT unless otherwise noted. 3. Erosion and siltation control measures shall be provided in accordance with the approved erosion control plan and shall be installed prior to any clearing, grading or other construction. 4. All slopes and disturbed areas are to be fertilized, seeded and mulched. 5. The maximum allowable slope is 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Where reasonably obtainable, lesser slopes of 3:1 or better are to be achieved. 6. Paved, rip -rap or stabilization mat lined ditch may be required when in the opinion of the County Engineer, or designee, it is deemed necessary in order to stabilize a drainage channel. 7. All traffic control signs shall conform with the Virginia Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 8. Unless otherwise noted all concrete pipe shall be reinforced concrete pipe — Class III. 9. All excavation for underground pipe installation must comply with OSHA Standards for the Construction Industry (29 CFR Part 1926). General construction notes for Erosion and Sediment Control plans 1. The plan approving authority must be notified one week prior to the pre - construction conference, one week prior to the commencement of land disturbing activity, and one week prior to the final inspection. 2. All erosion and sediment control measures will be constructed and maintained according to minimum standards and specifications of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and Virginia Regulations VR 625 -02 -00 Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. 3. All erosion and sediment control measures are to be placed prior to or as the first step in clearing.4. A copy of the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be maintained on the site at all times. 5. Prior to commencing land disturbing activities in areas other than indicated on these plans including, but not limited to, off -site borrow or waste areas), the contractor shall submit a supplementary erosion control plan to the owner for review and approval by the plan approving authority. 6. The contractor is responsible for installation of any additional erosion control measures necessary to prevent erosion and sedimentation as detennined by the plan approving authority. 7. All disturbed areas are to drain to approved sediment control measures at all times during land disturbing activities and during site development until final stabilization is achieved. 8. During dewatering operations, water will be pumped into an approved filtering device. 9. The contractor shall inspect all erosion control measures periodically and after each runoff - producing rainfall event. Any necessary repairs or cleanup to maintain the effectiveness of the erosion control devices shall be made immediately. 10. All fill material to be taken from an approved, designated borrow area. 11. All waste materials shall be taken to an approved waste area. Earth fill shall be inert materials only, free of roots, stumps, wood, rubbish, and other debris. 12. Borrow or waste areas are to be reclaimed within 7 days of completion per Zoning Ordinance section 5.1.28. 13. All inert materials shall be transported in compliance with section 13 -301 of the Code of Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Albemarle. 14. Borrow, fill or waste activity involving industrial -type power equipment shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am to 9:00pm. 15. Borrow, fill or waste activity shall be conducted in a safe manner than maintains lateral support, or order to minimize any hazard to persons, physical damage to adjacent land and improvements, and damage to any public street because o slides, sinking, or collapse. 16. The developer shall reserve the right to install, maintain, remove or convert to permanent stormwater management facilities where applicable all erosion control measures required by this plan regardless of the sale of any lot, unit, building or other portion of the property. 17. Temporary stabilization shall be temporary seeding and mulching. Seeding is to be at 75 lbs /acre, and in the months of September to February to consist a 50150 mix of Annual Ryegrass and Cereal Winter Rye, or in March and April to consist of Annual Rye, or May through August to consist of German Millet. Straw mulch is to be applied at 80lbs /100sf. Alternatives are subject to approved by the County erosion control inspector. 18. Permanent stabilization shall be lime and fertilizer, permanent seeding, and mulch. Agricultural grade limestone shall be applied at 90lbs /1000sf, incorporated into the top 4 -6 inches of soil. Fertilizer shall be applied at 1000lbs /acre and consist of a 10 -20 -10 nutrient mix. Permanent seeding shall be applied at 1801bs /acre and consist of 95% Kentucky 31 or Tall Fescue and 0 -5% Perennial Ryegrass or Kentucky Bluegrass. Straw mulch is to be applied at 801bs /100sf. Alternatives are subject to approved by the County erosion control inspector. 19. Maintenance: All measures are to be inspected weekly and after each rainfall. Any damage or clogging to structural measures is to be repair immediately. Silt traps are to be cleaned when 50% of the wet storage volume is filled with sediment. All seeded areas are to be reseeded when necessary to achieve a good stand of grass. Silt fence and diversion dykes which are collecting sediment to half their height must be cleaned and repaired immediately. 20. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures are to be removed within 30 days of final site stabilization, when measures are no longer needed, subject to approval by the County erosion control inspector. General construction notes for Stormwater Management plans 1. All dams and constructed fill to be within 95% of maximum dry density and 2% of optimum moisture content. All fill material to be approved by a geotechnical engineer. A geotechnical engineer is to be present during construction of dams. 2. Pipe and riser joints are to be watertight within stormwater management facilities. 3. For temporary sediment traps or basins which are to be converted to permanent stormwater management facilities; conversion is not to take place until the site is stabilized, and permission has been obtained from the County erosion control inspector. i1cuN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: David Pennock, Current Development planning and zoning review From: Jonathan Sharp, Current Development engineering review Date: 28 Nov 2007 Subject: LDS Church Minor Amendment (SDP200700104) critical slope waiver request The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: The critical slope area, within TMPs 32 -17 and 32 -17E3, appears to be natural slopes. The critical slope disturbance is in the form of a proposed stormwater management facility. This proposed facility is intended to serve roughly 8 acres of future development on portions of TMPs 32 -17, 32 -17E1, E2, and E3. The proposed facility will also serve the LDS Church on TMP 32 -17A1 (roughly 4 acres), which is currently under construction. Areas Acres Total site 31.3 acres approximately Critical slopes 2.6 8.3% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.12 4.6% of critical slopes Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is discussed: Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will not increase as the proposed stormwater facility will provide adequate stormwater detention. siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. loss of aesthetic resource" The proposed disturbance will be partially visible by neighboring properties. The plans show clearing an additional 3 acres of wooded area in order to install the proposed facility. septic effluent" The LDS church is served by public sewer. Albemarle CoLI"fity Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: The applicant originally submitted a WPO application proposing two regional facilities on TMPs 32 -17 and 32 -17E3. However, Stonnwater management facilities are allowed by right as shown only on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. The facilities do not fall under the criteria as an allowable stand alone use in areas zoned Light Industry. Therefore, the applicant submitted a Minor Amendment to the approved LDS Church Site Plan (SDP200600086) in order to be able to propose one of the facilities the facility which will also serve the LDS Church). The proposed critical slope disturbances associated with this plan are not exempt. The approved Stormwater Plans for the LDS Church (WPO200600055) show a proposed bioretention basin in the location of the sediment basin on site (after final stabilization the sediment basin will be retrofitted to a bioretention basin). This approved plan presents a reasonable alternative location. No plans have been submitted showing the future development which the proposed Stormwater Facility will serve. If a preliminary plan were submitted, a critical slopes waiver may not be necessary as the location may be reasonable in order to serve future development. However, without any plans of the proposed development, Engineering cannot support the proposed facility. Based on the above review, Engineering recommends denial to the critical slope waiver. 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 T of d w a NN fQ ar'TES Of Real Estate Office Mr. Gary Fem Director Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Fern.: January 11, 2008 JAN 7 5 200,3 I am writing with regards to our phone conversation on January 10, 2008. The Government has constructed water and sewer lines to serve the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC)site at Boulders Road and Seminole Trail, Albemarle County, Virginia. The Army has actually started the privatization process by ordering meets and bounds surveys to support the granting of utility easements. We are proceeding with the process of obtaining Army approvals needed to privatize both systems. Through this process, easements will be granted and ownership of thepipes /lines will be transferred. Once we receive the recorded surveys, our approval authority and the other items required byyourauthorityforthededicationofthewaterandsewersystems, we plan to grant easements and provide a bill of sale for both utility lines and any other improvements that make up the two utility systems located on the NGIC site. It is understood that there will be no connections to or use of the Government owned lines until such time as they are privatized. That privatization process will not delay the construction of an office building on private property adjacent to the Govermnent owned property. That office building will be leased by GSA in direct support to theArmymission. Thafflcs for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to coordinating these activities and getting this dedication completed as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Dillard H. Dorton Chief, Real Estate Office JEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY -. NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT NORFOLK, 803 FRONT STREET NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510 -1096 Enclosure Service Auth4rit 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, r- Gary W. Fern, P. E. Executive Director YOW \ I kCil A'' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126 Project: LDS Church Plan Amendments (WPO -2006- 00055; SDP -2007- 00104) Plan preparer: Basil Finnegan, Blackwell Eng. [ basil (cublackwellengineering.com] Owner or rep.: John Griffin, Zobrist Law Group [jgriffin u?zoblaw.com] LDS Church, Bruce Hardy [419 London Ct Ruckersville, VA 22968] Plan received date: (Rev. 1) 15 January 2008 09 Oct 2007 Date of comments: (Rev. 1) 29 February 2008 23 Oct 2007 Reviewer: (Rev. 1) Phil Custer Jonathan Sharp The SWM, ESC, and site amendments for the LDS church, received 15 January 2008, have been reviewed. The plans cannot be approved at this time. The following comments have been provided: A. Application information B. Existing conditions information 4. (Rev. 1) Per condition 1 of the critical slope waiver action letter, please delineate a 100' buffer on all sheets. Note on each sheet how the contractor is not to disturb outside the shown limits of construction, especially within 100' of existing stream. The applicant also needs to provide engineering review with the approval letters from the necessary agencies permitting the disturbance of the intermittent stream and /or wetlands located on site. A grading permit will not be issued until these letters are received. C. Proposed plan view information D. Stormwater management plan engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 8. Stormwater facilities may be oversized for future development. However, Stormwater Management will have to be verified at the time that future site plans are submitted. (If any SWM requirements change, future plans will have to be in accord with the latest standards.) 12. Please show the location of stonnwater management easements around the proposed facility. Easements should encompass 100 -year WSE area, all structures and embankments, and access to the riser and forebay.) Rev. 1) Comment addressed. Though, the easement may need to be adjusted based on necessary changes to address comment #15. 14. The following is required for a retention pond with 4xWQV: a. 15% of WQV is 1.5' deep or less b. 15% of WQV is between 1.5' to 2' deep c. 70% of WQV is between 2' to 6' deep d. a 10 -15' wide and 1 -1.5' deep aquatic bench e. at least 3 species of aquatic plants are used Rev. 1) Please provide a greater portion of the WQV to be held in the 2' to 6' depth. It appears that only 42% of the volume is held within this range (70% is the target). It appears this can be achieved easily by reducing the forebay slightly. Please provide a typical 10'.t 10' planting plan for the aquatic bench and a total plant count for the entire pond. The counted plantings are needed for bonding purposes. 15. Please show vehicle access roads to the riser structure and forebay weir of the pond. The following is required for maintenance access roads: a. access 10' wide minimum and 20'No slope maximum b. slope over 10% requires gravel surface Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Access road needs to show the grading need to construct the path. There also appears to be no access available to the forebay. Please adjust the path to the forebay and riser so that it is traversable. Please make it clear on the plan what portion of the access road will require gravel surfacing. t Agineering Review Continents Page 3 of 3 19. A Stonnwater bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. a. (Rev. 1) Please provide a baffle to lengthen the flow path in the facility for the sediment basin and SWMpond. b. (Rev. 1) Please design and show on the plan appropriately sized riprap channels on the proposed 2: l slopes upstreain and downstream of die sediment forebay. Engineering review recommends grouting the riprap channel to prevent washout. E. Erosion control plan 21. Please show the Temporary Stablization (TS) symbol on the plans. Rev. 1) Please show Temporary Stabilization on the stockpile. 22. Please show a location for a parking and staging area and a stockpile area. These areas should be located within the limits of disturbance. Rev. 1) Please relocate staging and stockpile area to as close to Timberwood Boulevard as possible per condition 2 of the critical slope waiver. It appears that both of these items can be placed within the limits of disturbance of the approved plan. Mnti/tiize the limits of disturbance boundary to only the area needed to construct the pond. 24. The following comments refer to the sediment basin: a. The basin needs an adequate riser structure to dewater dry storage for a 6 -hour drawdown time. Rev. 1) Please label the diameter of'the dewatering orifice andprovide the necessary calculations Items b, c, and d appear to have been addressed 26. It does not appear that stormwater channel (A) needs to be constructed at this time, as it is not capturing any developed or disturbed area. Stonnwater Conveyance Channels should be denoted with the appropriate VESCH symbol (SCC). Rev. 1) The stormwater channel A is unnecessary and should be removed from the plan per condition 2 of the critical slope waiver approval letter. 27. An E &S bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. a. (Rev. 1) Please remove the silt fence from the channel below the sediment basin.