Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800096 Review Comments 2008-07-08ARB - MCWWTP Brent Nelson From: Brent Nelson Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:31 AM To: 'jwhitaker@rivanna.org' Cc: 'wrussell @hazenandsawyer.com'; Summer Frederick Subject: RE: ARB - MCWWTP Importance: High Page I of 2 1 #i i <' ?alit `l t" v€3ti <,tc , '; li"i. 1 :,ll€ >rf €I tlll l",tc l c }:;. tzi"Ci <IV !> I c:c }ltld l?;?l?dlc ihl lh? \ too a) RWSA Improvements: Visibility Motion: Mr. Lebo moved to grant administrative approval for ARB - 2008 -92 RWSA Nutrient Removal Improvements, based on the extremely limited visibility and because the colors of the proposed building materials are appropriate. Second: Mr. Daggett Vote: The motion carried by a vote of 3:0. (Mr. Wright and Mr. Missel were absent.) 1c 'il }iit•. " I ,}a€ ; i ,1,4 t. <..l ijli €131t ti ;_ 't t.l til !l!i`, 'lv! €il alE;It'tE €l'' 1 E! 8ti crtc € }3l i= `Cdill'°;`a.' the c .ii tEt;,; i'l. hliiltlt'rls_' m ".::l til €lA Iilc' 1il<lt Li. i'E'C', lC €r1E lt'S.l11aE4t' .3 , s : €C' . ild ill he ll3v'el' lL'i! a }I "41t "9 (0 ` „l:lE dl t`,. $Lf_'6 °It4 lFhrlckI?t_`C'll t*s >t'lll ltlatch Ow t l =. E ; Ii i °.t lttl Bill E' #.:', 1, kit n 1v .lnd Ink:kldc :l ra:,: ? € }il #.;i: Eli} tll` (11”' ;a,l y (qt Zile v,'c :o toc ?lm lila,i t # :t „. li::i`.is ?'.._ r.:l.it6t ;1 (l ?',i_ ,,I , .ss} I.!lC'. t)ldc c:l?1 1'll': s" C:f} €I(aC:t isle ll St } {t # €<t1 lti. ;' _. Brent Brent W. Nelson Landscape Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 434- 296 -5832, ext 3272 434- 972 -4012 (fax) ARB Web Page: lltil ".11 <.lil tll:;s" # .t r °f11c °l :< €Y;Y: °t ?t.a{ .p''c'.,aE :<t" }.} ?• : 3 :.ls# iilst ±i .r{;Il;s °. __ Y) l From: Jennifer Whitaker [mailto:jwhitaker @rivanna.org] 7/8/2008 ARB - MCWWTP Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:53 AM To: Brent Nelson Cc: 'Taylor, Ronald L.'; 'Carroll, Janice R'; 'Bob Wichser' Subject: ARB - MCWWTP Page 2 of 2 Brent, Thank you for working so diligently on the ARB application for the MCWWTP. I wanted to follow -up with you onthediscussionyouhadwithBillRusselllastweekandtheARBmeetingyesterday. If you could you please let meknowtheoutcomeofthesediscussions, I would appreciate it? I understand your hope was to handle this permit administratively rather than taking it to the ARB. 7/8/2008 i Ji 'IIII iz County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 14 July 2008 Subject: Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility Major Site Plan Amendment SDP - 2008 - 00100) The site plan amendment for the Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility has been reviewed. At this time, engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to this site plan amendment. The following comments are provided. Before approval of this amendment is granted, a WPO (Water Protection Ordinance) plan will need to be submitted and approved by engineering review. Currently, an application has not been submitted. It appears that there are some ESC measures shown on the site plan. Engineering review will provide brief comments on the ESC scheme at the end of this memo. Also, it appears water quality will need to be provided treating the new impervious area of tertiary filters and UV disinfection facility on sheet C12 as well as chemical filling station area. The SWM plan should analyze which areas of development will require stormwater quality treatment by using the Modified Simple BMP spreadsheet. A detention waiver has been granted by the county engineer. The applicant should show the stream buffer lines on all sheets. The stream buffer is 100ft from the top of each of streambank of Moore's Creek. Disturbance of the stream buffer will be allowed per 17- 321.1, but a mitigation plan must be submitted and approved during the WPO plan review. Mitigation plan requirements can be found in the county design manual available online. The Bulk Chemical Storage facility in the floodplain will require a Special Use Permit for till in the floodplain. An application for this permit is available online. The storage of the chernicals will be allowed in this building if they located at least 1 ft above the 100 -year flood elevation. [18 -30.3] 4. Please provide the FEMA map number and date on the plan. The 20 scale sheets should also show the FEMA floodplain. [DM] 5. Please provide existing topography on all 20 scale sheets. In areas being developed, there is no existing topography. 6. Please show all critical slopes on the plan. A waiver of critical slope disturbance will be required. 7. Please show safety railing for any wall over 4ft in height. [DM] 8. Provide a typical detail for all walls. Please include any safety railings on this detail as well. [DM] 9. Curbing is required on both sides of the travelway on sheet C 12. [ 18- 4.12.15] 10. A waiver of the travelway width will need to be given by the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review supports the approval of this wavier. [ 18- 4.12.16] Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 11. Profiles are required in the sheet set for all new stormwater pipes. The profiles should include all of the requirements listed in the checklist in the design manual. Please note that the four foot drop specified in the IS -1 requirement includes drops from grates to invert out elevation. 12. There seems to be a discrepancy between the sheet C 12 and the calculation summary table for pipe 5 -4. Also, please note that none of the structures in this set are labeled. 13. Inlet capacity calculations do not appear to provided. 14. Please provide drainage area maps for each drainage structure with acreages, hydrologic coefficients, destination structures, and time of concentrations labeled. The following comments regard the ESC measures shown on the site plan amendment. A full review will be completed once an application and all other WPO plan requirements are received. 1. Please show limits of disturbance lines. [DM] 2. Please provide construction entrances to disturbed areas. [DM] 3. Silt fence cannot run across contour lines. On sheet C13, please provide a silt trap at the low point with diversion dikes running east and west where the silt fence was called out. DM] 4. A narrative should be provided. [VESCH] 5. Please show soil stockpile areas where necessary. [DM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 July 16, 2008 Matthew Buswell; Hazsen & Sawyer via email: _ ;hanz_enancisawyer.ec m Cc: RWSA via email:jwhitaker@rivanna.org RE: Moores Creek Nutrient Removal — Major Amendment SDP2008 -100 Dear Mr. Buswell: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Historic Preservation) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Health Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by July 28, 2008. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner /Planner Zoning & Current Development t County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Matthew Buswell; Hazsen & Sawyer via email: mbuswell(aManzenandsawyer.com CC: RWSA via email:jwhitaker@rivanna.org From: Summer Frederick Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: July 14, 2008 Subject: Moore Creek Nutrient Removal — Major Amendment SDP2008 -100 The Planner /Engineer for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide the following information on the cover sheet of the plan set: Name of owner and developer of project site, Tax map and parcel number, Zoning designation, magisterial district, and county and state of property, One datum reference for elevation, Source of topography, Source of survey, Owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number, and present use of all adjoining parcels, Boundary dimensions. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum square foot and height measurements for all proposed buildings. 3. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(c)] If phasing is planned for the project, please include phase lines on plan. 4. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(d)] Please provide existing topography and depiction of all critical slopes located on site. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(f)] Please provide a signature panel for all relevant agencies' final signature. 6. [Sec. 18- 32.6.6(j)] If any outdoor lighting is to be installed with project development, please include a photometric plan meeting all requirements of the section. The requested waiver of requirements for a landscape plan has been administratively granted. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. old II`d County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 14 July 2008 Subject: Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility Major Site Plan Amendment SDP-2008-00100) The site plan amendment for the Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility has been reviewed. At this time, engineering review for current development cannot recommend approval to this site plan amendment. The following comments are provided. Before approval of this amendment is granted, a WPO (Water Protection Ordinance) plan will need to be submitted and approved by engineering review. Currently, an application has not been submitted. It appears that there are some ESC measures shown on the site plan. Engineering review will provide brief comments on the ESC scheme at the end of this memo. Also, it appears water quality will need to be provided treating the new impervious area of tertiary filters and UV disinfection facility on sheet C 12 as well as chemical filling station area. The SWM plan should analyze which areas of development will require stonnwater quality treatment by using the Modified Simple BMP spreadsheet. A detention waiver has been granted by the county engineer. 2. The applicant should show the stream buffer lines on all sheets. The stream buffer is 100ft from the top of each of streambank of Moore's Creek. Disturbance of the stream buffer will be allowed per 17 -321. 1, but a mitigation plan must be submitted and approved during the WPO plan review. Mitigation plan requirements can be found in the county design manual available online. 3. The Bulk Chemical Storage facility in the tloodplain will require a Special Use Permit for fill in the tloodplain. An application for this permit is available online. The storage of the chemicals will be allowed in this building if they located at least Ift above the 100 -year flood elevation. [18 -30.3] 4. Please provide the FEMA map number and date on the plan. The 20 scale sheets should also show the FEMA tloodplain. [DM] 5. Please provide existing topography on all 20 scale sheets. In areas being developed, there is no existing topography. h. Please show all critical slopes on the plan. A waiver of critical slope disturbance will be required. 7. Please show safety railing for any wall over Oft in height. [DM] S. Provide a typical detail for all walls. Please include any safety railings on this detail as well. [DM] 9. Curbing is required on both sides of the travelway on sheet C 12. [18-4. 12. 15] 10. A waiver of the travelway width will need to he given by the Zoning Administrator. Engineering review supports the approval of this wavier. [ 18- 4.12.16] Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 11. Profiles are required in the sheet set for all new stormwater pipes. The profiles should include all of the requirements listed in the checklist in the design manual. Please note that the four foot drop specified in the IS -1 requirement includes drops from grates to invert out elevation. 12. There seems to be a discrepancy between the sheet C 12 and the calculation summary table for pipe 5 -4. Also, please note that none of the structures in this set are labeled. 13. Inlet capacity calculations do not appear to provided. 14. Please provide drainage area maps for each drainage structure with acreages, hydrologic coefficients, destination structures, and time of concentrations labeled. The following comments regard the ESC measures shown on the site plan amendment. A full review will be completed once an application and all other WPO plan requirements are received. 1. Please show limits of disturbance lines. [DM] 2. Please provide construction entrances to disturbed areas. [DM] 3. Silt fence cannot run across contour lines. On sheet C 13, please provide a silt trap at the low point with diversion dikes running east and west where the silt fence was called out. DM] 4. A narrative should be provided. [VESCH] 5. Please show soil stockpile areas where necessary. [DM] FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: July 9, 2008 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Moores Creek Nutrient Removal SDP200800100 TM 78 -22A The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 8 inch water line is located on site. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. A inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. X 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: Notify ACSA of construction activity within easements. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0898 www.servic;eaUthoriy,org Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District July 23, 2008 2134 Berkmar Dr Charlottesville, VA 22901 975-0224 TO: Summer Frederick Planning Department RE: Soils Report and Comments for: Moores Creek Nutrient Removal 13E F 2E r ' 1 I S •D -" 79B ? ' it 3r - - - -- \ - 7,i) 1 ? a 8 7 ,B \ fi f 12D CO 23C ` q h\ 71D 89B 13E iC 3 `F G9 13D 83J C 71D - 3 /' \ \ "` % 71DrE I2E ^l\as . J 238 79 8 71D 711 58C 13E 83 i IV - 7 3t, 5qE 1 71(- / 59E \ t 83 12E > zf310 5$8 5J7f NrecEo/ 58D 1 \ 71E ` \71'D / 72D3 \Zip AEMORIAL/ -\ 59D ` l _ _ 58D 23d ., 23B r\ 1 88 V C 71C 79B ' Q 5 13E,' 71E I1D '283 \ 72C3 72D3 i giafiC59EI1D 72E 7 I Yi ;1 79B / 71B 71B 3 58D / '71C 71Br .- i' -4D 71C \ 7 ; 72C3 12C v 7291 i \ 1 O \ 1 i . \ate' 12D s 1,)B3 71C:.j 7ID 153E " J ` tr- ` 12D y`b r71U \ 4- 23B 3011 588° . ( 33 in 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: Moore's Creek Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 10 Buncombe loamy sand Description Category: Virginia FOTG Buncombe is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loamy sand about 10 inches thick. The surface layer has a low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is rapid. It has a low available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is frequently flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 5w. The Virginia soil management group is II. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 12D Catoctin 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 4e. The Virginia soil management group is JJ. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Catoctin is a 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 7e. 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: 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Davidson is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 4 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. 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 3e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 7/23/08 Map Unit: 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Davidson is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer isclayloamabout4inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. 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 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Myersville is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is silt loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability ismoderate. 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 capabilityclassificationis4e. The Virginia soil management group is D. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 71 C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clayloamabout6inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. 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 6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Rabun is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 6 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability ismoderate. 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 capabilityclassificationis6e. The Virginia soil management group is N. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 76 Riverview loam Description Category: Virginia FOTG Riverview is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loamabout12inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low 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 occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 48 inches. The land capability classification is 2w. The Virginia soil management group is G. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit. 83 Toccoa fine sandy loan Description Category: Virginia FOTG Toccoa is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, moderately well drained soil. Typically the surface layer isfinesandyloamabout9inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a moderate available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is occasionally flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 45 inches. The land capability classification is 2w. The Virginia soil management group is I1. This soil is not hydric. Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 7/23/08 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Map Symbol Soil Name Rating Symbol Soil Name Rating 10 Buncombe loamy sand Very limited 12D Catoctin silt loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes Not hydric 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes Not hydric 13D Catoctin very stony silt Very limited Not hydric loam, 15 to 25 percent 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to slopes 25 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to Very limited 76 Riverview loam 15 percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to Very limited 25 percent slopes 71 C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 76 Riverview loam Very limited 83 Toccoa fine sandy loam Very limited Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 10 Buncombe loamy sand Partially hydric 12D Catoctin silt loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 Not hydric percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt Not hydric loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to Not hydric 25 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 76 Riverview loam Partially hydric Thomas Jetterson SWCD 3 723/08 83 Toccoa fine sandy loam Partially hydric Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth: 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Rating 10 Buncombe loamy sand Symbol Soil Name Rating 10 Buncombe loamy sand 1.5 12D Catoctin silt loam, 15 to 25 1.5 13D Catoctin very stony silt percent slopes loam, 15 to 25 percent 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 1.5 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt 1.5 15 percent slopes loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to 1.5 25 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 76 Riverview loam 1.5 83 Toccoa fine sandy loam 1.5 Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 10 Buncombe loamy sand Moderate 12D Catoctin silt loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 Moderate percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt Moderate loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes Thomas Jetterson SWCD 4 7/23/08 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to Moderate 25 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes Symbol 71D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 Moderate Buncombe loamy sand percent slopes 12D 76 Riverview loam Moderate 83 Toccoa fine sandy loam Moderate Corrosion Steel - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 10 Buncombe loamy sand Low 12D Catoctin silt loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 12E Catoctin silt loam, 25 to 45 High percent slopes 13D Catoctin very stony silt High loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23B Davidson clay loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 23C Davidson clay loam, 7 to High 15 percent slopes 58D Myersville silt loam, 15 to Moderate 25 percent slopes 71C Rabun clay loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 71 D Rabun clay loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 76 Riverview loam Low 83 Toccoa fine sandy loam Low Thomas Jetterson SWCD 5 7/23/08 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 12 January 2009 Subject: Moores Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility Major Site Plan Amendment SDP -2008- 00100) The site plan amendment for the Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. d Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 11. Profiles are required in the sheet set for all new stormwater pipes. The profiles should include all of the requirements listed in the checklist in the design manual. Please note that the four foot drop specified in the IS -1 requirement includes drops from grates to invert out elevation. c. (Rev. 1) Inlet shaping has not been provided where necessarv. Rev. 2) Comment has not been addressed. VDOT IS -1 must be provided on all inlets where a drop of Oft exists in the structure, including the drop from the grate at the surface. This requirement can be covered with a standard note on the profile sheets stating that VDOT IS -1 is required on all drainage structures unless otherwise noted. 14. Please provide drainage area maps for each drainage structure with acreages, hydrologic coefficients, destination structures, and time of concentrations labeled. Rev. 1) The northern drainage area map should designate the drainage areas. Rev. 2) The table on the main road drainage area map does not seem to correspond with the inlet designations on the map. Please clarify. Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 Albemarle County Service Auth4rit Serving Conserving January 29, 2009 The Cox Company Attn: Mr. Hal Jones, P.E. 220 East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Moore's Creek Water & Sewer Extension Phase 2 Dear Mr. Jones: The plan, entitled Moore's Creek Sewer & Water Extension- Redfields and Sieg Utility Plan- Phase 2 dated February 14, 2001, last revised January 5, 2009, is hereby approved for construction. One set of the approved plan is enclosed for your records. Any previously approved plans are voided with this approval. This approval is for basic compliance with the General Water & Sewer Construction Specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and does not relieve the contractor from responsibility for his work as it relates to the plan and specifications. The ACSA requires that a copy of the approved construction plan be on the job site. The contractor is responsible for marking up a copy of the approved construction plan showing as -built information and provide this data to your client at the completion of utility installation. The final as -built plan shall be submitted in a format of one paper copy and one mylar copy. Attached to this approval letter, you will find the ACSA's detail entitled "Typical Anchor Detail for Sewers on Grades 20% and Greater." This detail was not provided on the plans but will be required during the course of construction. A preconstruction conference shall be scheduled with the project manager to ensure coordination and answer any questions. This will be a short meeting to review the project, materials, test methods and schedule, in order to expedite construction. Please have the proper party call me at 977 -4511 to schedule the meeting. This approval is valid for a period of 18 months from this date. If construction is not in progress at the end of this time period, the approval shall be void. The pressure for water may exceed 80 psi at some meter locations 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville, VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977-4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org 5PP2 -100 If You have any questions, or if we can be434) 977-4511.of assistance, please give us a call at JML /anw cc: Alan Taylor State Health DepartmentCurrentDevelopmentgill Fritz "Bldg Codes & Zoning ServicesSoilErosionInspector050601M0OresCreekExtEn9Ltr012909 Sincerely, Jeremy M Lynn, P.E..._.Senior Civil Engineer ANCHOR EXTENDS INTO SIDE OF DITCH DITCH 6" MIN. LINE VARIES D. I. PIPE a SPACING SPACING 2500 PSI CONCRETE I-- PLAN ACING TYPICAL ANCHOR DETAIL FOR SEWERS ON GRADES 20% AND GREATER N. T. S FIG. S -4 I N D. I. PIPE Lo N C5 ANCHOR N0. 1 AT z FIRST JOINT ABOVE GRADE SPACING MANHOLE. 20% TO 35%NOT OVER 36' 35% TO 50%NOT OVER 24' 50% OR GREATER NOT OVER 16'CT:,z AF 6 ,a PROFILE TYPICAL ANCHOR DETAIL FOR SEWERS ON GRADES 20% AND GREATER N. T. S FIG. S -4 W County 11.lfF.it C :y l r' J 5i , L r „ County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Current Development Project Planner From: Phil Custer, Current Development engineering review Date: 8 August 2008 Subject: Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility Major Site Plan Amendment SDP - 2008 - 00100) The site plan amendment for the Moore's Creek Sanitary Sewer Treatment Facility has been reviewed. The following comments are provided. 1. Before approval of this amendment is granted, a WPO (Water Protection Ordinance) plan will need to be submitted and approved by engineering review. Currently, an application has not been submitted. It appears that there are some ESC measures shown on the site plan. Engineering review will provide brief comments on the ESC scheme at the end of this memo. Also, it appears water quality will need to be provided treating the new impervious area of tertiary filters and UV disinfection facility on sheet C12 as well as chemical filling station area. The SWM plan should analyze which areas of development will require stonnwater quality treatment by using the Modified Simple BMP spreadsheet. A detention waiver has been granted by the county engineer. Rev. l) An application for an ESC, SWM, and mitigation plan has been received by engineering. Review comments will be given in a separate letter. The applicant should show the stream buffer lines on all sheets. The stream buffer is 100ft from the top of each of streambank of Moore's Creek. Disturbance of the stream buffer will be allowed per 17- 321.1, but a mitigation plan must be submitted and approved during the WPO plan review. Mitigation plan requirements can be found in the county design manual available online. Rev. 1) Please refer to WPO comment letter: Current Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 7. Please show safety railing for any wall over 4ft in height. [DM] Rev. 1) A retaining wall exists between the UV disinfection facility and the tertiary filters. S. Provide a typical detail for all walls. Please include any safety railings on this detail as well. [DM] Rev. 1) A retaining wall exists between the UV disinfection and the tertiary filters. 11. Profiles are required in the sheet set for all new stormwater pipes. The profiles should include all of the requirements listed in the checklist in the design manual. Please note that the four foot drop specified in the IS -1 requirement includes drops from grates to invert out elevation. a. (Rev. 1) Not all pipe systems appear in profile. The sheets are missing profiles forpipes CD21 -CB19, CB6 -CB3, and CB7 -CB2. b. (Rev. ])For each structure, please provide a standard VDOT designation (MH- 1, DI -1, DI -3, etc.). All inlets in parking areas must be VD0T standard inlets. c. (Rev. ])Inlet shaping has not been provided where necessary. d. (Rev. 1) Please specify the throat length and grate type for each inlet. 13. Inlet capacity calculations do not appear to provided. Rev. 1) In the calculations, what does "sweep "mean under inlet length? 14. Please provide drainage area maps for each drainage structure with acreages, hydrologic coefficients, destination structures, and time of concentrations labeled. Rev. 1) The northern drainage area map should designate the drainage areas. The following comments regard the ESC measures shown on the site plan amendment. A full review will be completed once an application and all other WPO plan requirements are received. 1. Please show limits of disturbance lines. [DM] 2. Please provide construction entrances to disturbed areas. [DM] 3. Silt fence cannot run across contour lines. On sheet C 13, please provide a silt trap at the low point with diversion dikes running east and west where the silt fence was called out. DM] 4. A narrative should be provided. [VESCH] 5. Please show soil stockpile areas where necessary. [DM] Rev. 1) Comments regarding ESC will be given in the WPO letter.