Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900022 Review Comments 2009-04-14of ALB I NiP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 April 14, 2009 David Anhold Via email: danhold @hughes.net RE: SDP2009 -22 Preddy Creek Park Improvements - Preliminary Dear Sir: 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 April 27, 2009. 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 Zoning & Current Development 4w09--et IRGIN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To:David Anhold CC:Robert Crickenberger From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date:March 14, 2009 Subject: SDP2009 -22 Preddy Creek Park Improvements - Prelim The Planner for the 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 zoning district information for site. 2. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide magisterial district information. 3. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] One datum reference for elevation is required. 4. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide the following information for adjacent parcels; owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number, and present use of parcels. 5. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide minimum setback lines, yard and building separation requirements. 6. Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide boundary line dimensions. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From:Max Greene, Current Development engineering review Date:9 Mar 2006 Subject: Preddy Creek Park Improvements (WP0200900022) The preliminary site plan has been reviewed. 1. Show sight distances at the entrance per VDOT requirements. [VDOT] 2. The State Water protection requires fore -bays on all stormwater detention/control structures. [VSMH] A check dam may suffice if there is available volume in the structure. 3. Travelway will be designed to meet or exceed the VDOT standards for the projected daily traffic count. [ 18- 4.12.17.d] Gravel surface is not deemed equivalent per [ 18- 4.12.15.a] 4. The curb and gutter request does not appear to have anything to do with Storm Water Management or an existing use in the rural area per section 18- 4.12.15.g There are no engineering issues. 5. The main access way to the parking areas should be the main road and any side roads will be a spur to the main. Please design the road to VDOT standards for the projected vehicle size and type. 3 "Xy"...:'i . 71 Service Authrity TO: Summer Frederick FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: April 10, 2009 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Preddy Creek Park Improvements SDP200900022 TM 22 -1 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is not within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: X A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. A inch water line is located approximately distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. 4. An inch sewer line is located approximately distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. 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: No comment. 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 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org Application #:SDP200900022 Short Review Comr. nts Project Name: Preddy Creek Park Improvements - Prelim Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed:04/08/2009 Reviewer:Andrew Slack E911 Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed:04/10/2009 Reviewer:James Barber Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Date Completed:04/08/2009 Reviewer:Max Greene Engineer Z &CD Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: SRC 4/16/09 Date Completed:04/08/2009 Reviewer:Max Greene CommDev- Current Development Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: The curb and gutter request does not appear to have anything to do with Storm Water Management or an existing use in the rural area per section 18- 4.12.15.g There are no engineering issues. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 Summer Frederick From:DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [ Joel .DeNunzio ©VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent:Friday, March 05, 2010 4:04 PM To:Summer Frederick Cc:Max Greene; Pat Mullaney Subject:Preddy Creek Park Entrance Preddy Creek Park Entrance Summer, I have reviewed the above plan and have the following comment: I recommend changing the typical road section with asphalt to show 2 inches surface and 8 inches of stone. The proposed design with 2 inches of intermediate does not provide any structural benefit and using only the surface at 2 inches and 8 inches of stone will make construction easier and lower the cost of the pavement. A permit will be required for construction within the route 641 ROW and can be obtained from the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Office. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434 -293 -0011 Ext. 120 ioel .denunzio(d)vdot.virginia.gov 1 gip\ ALBF, t HClN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum From: Max Greene, Current Development engineering review Date:9 Mar 2006 Subject: Preddy Creek Park Improvements (WP0200900022) The preliminary site plan has been reviewed. 1. Show sight distances at the entrance per VDOT requirements. [VDOT] 2. The State Water protection requires fore -bays on all stormwater detention /control structures. [VSMH] A check dam may suffice if there is available volume in the structure. 3. Travelway will be designed to meet or exceed the VDOT standards for the projected daily traffic count. [18- 4.12.17.d] Gravel surface is not deemed equivalent per [ 18 - 4.12.15.a] 4. The curb and gutter request does not appear to have anything to do with Storm Water Management or an existing use in the rural area per section 18- 4.12.15.g There are no engineering issues. 5. The main access way to the parking areas should be the main road and any side roads will be a spur to the main. Please design the road to VDOT standards for the projected vehicle size and type. yz M ti,. d% COMMONWEALTH ;ALTS of VI N A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER April 15` 2009 Mr. Glenn Brooks Depat intent of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments April 16, 2009 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the April 16 2009 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2009 - 00016 North Fork Regional Pump Station — Preliminary (Gerald Gatobu) 1. There are proffers by both the North Fork Research Park and Northpoint to add an additional southbound lane to route 29 at the location where this plan proposes a gravity sewer. No plans have been reviewed for the widening of the road but efforts need to be made to avoid conflicts. If widening takes place to the outside of Route 29, a 12 foot lane and a 13 foot shoulder will be added. Utility structures must be placed outside of these lanes and shoulders. Proposed structures 27 and 28 appear to be conflicting. It is recommended that if the line must be placed within the VDOT Right of Way, it is located in the outer 3 to 5 feet of the Right of Way in accordance with VDOT's Land Use Pen Manual, 24VAC 30 -150 -1310. 2. Final plans will need to include a pavement design and entrance profile. A detail for the pavement widening will be required and a design for the break in the guardrail needs to be shown on the plan. SDP - 2009 - 00017 Humagen Fertility Diagnostics — minor (Gerald Gatobu) Final plan needs to include design and drainage details for the pipe proposed within the existing Route 1146 Right of Way. SDP - 2009 - 00018 Blue Ridge Shopping Center — Major (Elizabeth Marotta) An easement is needed from the existing DI on Route 250 to the first structure off the ROW around the 24 inch pipe. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING SDP - 2009 -00019 Lacy Mechanical Inc. — Major (Elizabeth Marotta) No comments SDP - 2009 -00020 Tabor Presbyterian Church Addition - Prelim (Summer Frederick) 1. The number of seats in the addition and the ITE trip generation numbers need to be shown on the plan. 2. Sight distances need to be shown on the existing and proposed entrances in accordance with the Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways 24VAC 30 -71 -130. 3. The proposed one way entrance needs to be dimensioned as shown in 24VAC -30 -71 -160 of The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways Commercial /Private Entrance Design Illustrations. The minimum width is 14 feet and the minimum radii are 12.5 feet. The selected dimensions of the entrance need to accommodate the design vehicle and should be increased accordingly. One way signs will also need to be shown on the plan. Recommended dimensions for curb returns can be found in Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual. 4. The two existing entrances need to be evaluated and upgraded to the current standards if found to be substandard in accordance with the requirements of section 24VAC- 30 -71- 140. 5. Tabor Street is paved with surface course asphalt. The entrances into the site must be of the same material as the road back to the ROW line or the easement line as indicated in 24VAC 30 -71 -80 of The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. 6. Profiles for entrances need to be shown as a CG -11 standard. 7. Entrance pipes should be a minimum of 15 inches in diameter for all entrances. In order to approve the use of 12 inch pipes, a hydraulic analysis will need to be submitted showing the 12 inch pipe will not cause water to overtop the road in significant storm events as described in VDOT's Drainage Manual section 8.3.3.1. SDP - 2009 -000 2.Pre k Park Improvements - Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The connection to Route 810 needs to show a profile in accordance with the CG -11 standard. 2. Erosion control stone should be placed at each end of the proposed pipe. 3. Sight distances need to be shown at the proposed entrance in accordance with the requirements of The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways, 24VAC 30 -71- 130. SDP -20Q9 -00022 Preddv Creek Park Improvements - Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The connection to Route 641 needs to show a profile in accordance with the CG -11 standard. 2. Erosion control stone should be placed at the oulet end of the proposed pipe. 3. Sight distances need to be shown at the proposed entrance in accordance with the requirements of The Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways, 24VAC 30 -71- 130. SUB - 2009 -00049 Free Bridze Subdivision —Final (Patrick Lawrence) Access easements should be provided from Olympia Drive to TMP78 -9A, Residue TMP - 78-57B and TMP 78 -10A through the proposed lots E, F and Residue of TMP -78 -11 for WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District April 24, 2009 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975-0224 TO:Summer Frederick Planning Department RE:Soils Report and Comments for: Preddy Creek Park J ir 0 ez0Lg- w w - 90 .j C CO g N C " 'A p oifi fir 7 . . v„, N n vv:4,0 , At::. A eim cam W ,, i'I w 1b D w I r w Ae CO ham'm y N Ao v m 2 r v N mmi40 W n 1 w w w Z O i CO w Z N'r N w N t,,, rug (t 0 /AO 11111.4 ,4 40 W A - O fie. W N 5 7 J w v W a. "m D N W 4441tillC JW tv im,n,Kr.„, 4 cl fer p 7 W ti w\A e 11\4-w 28C e O p w W J w 11 N i w W I W NA A p n p p A wvpAm r N I",W w V ii y w N C N A 1 15i ems, MEI Ain.) w p A ae 74 1 r. ff-- i 77-, illk-3 .,,,,, tt . w oc< Ig 'i‘' t 0 p 16., .w;n r 0A w .w. O W 4 O a O • o p rn s w w o i b p p4' n Illib T i ,,, 1 i Ve ,1 V AV f W 2C ' N O.'w 34C Obi J n .0; N i p i era w m NT 41 ( 1k USDA United States ratural Prepared by: ThdThas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434 - 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Preddy Ck Pk Improvements Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 16 Chewacla silt loam Description Category: Virginia FOTG Chewacla is a nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, somewhat poorly 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 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 12 inches. The land capability classification is 3w. The Virginia soil management group is I. 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 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: 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg 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 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 2e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Glenelg 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 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 3e. The Virginia soil management group is U. This soil is not hydric. Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 4/27/09 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. Map Unit: 39E Hazel loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 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: 40D Hazel very stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hazel is a moderately steep to steep, moderately deep, excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 10 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: 50D Manor loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Manor 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 D. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 55B McQueen loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG McQueen is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is slow. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is rarely flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 66 inches. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is B. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 56B Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Meadowville is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 14 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 moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The top of the seasonal high water table is at 48 inches. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is G. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 93E Watt channery silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 4/27/09 Watt is a steep to steep, moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soil. Typically the surface layer ischannerysiltloamabout10inchesthick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderately rapid. It has a very 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. Local Roads and Streets - 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 16 Chewacla silt loam Very limited 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Very limited slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Very limited percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 39E Hazel loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 40D Hazel very stony loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes 50D Manor loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 55B McQueen loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 56B Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 93E Watt channery silt loam, Very limited 25 to 45 percent slopes Septic Tank Absorption Fields - 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 16 Chewacla silt loam Very limited 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Somewhat limited slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes Thomas Jefferson S WCD 3 4/27/09 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Somewhat limited percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 39E Hazel loam, 25 to 45 Very limited percent slopes 40D Hazel very stony loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes 50D Manor loam, 15 to 25 Very limited percent slopes 55B McQueen loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 56B Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 Very limited percent slopes 93E Watt channery silt loam, Very limited 25 to 45 percent slopes Mapunit Hydric Rating Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 16 Chewacla silt loam Partially hydric 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Not hydric slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 Not hydric percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 39E Hazel loam, 25 to 45 Not hydric percent slopes 40D Hazel very stony loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes 50D Manor loam, 15 to 25 Not hydric percent slopes 55B McQueen loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 56B Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 Partially hydric percent slopes 93E Watt channery silt loam, Not hydric 25 to 45 percent slopes Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 16 Chewacla silt loam 1.5 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent 1.5 slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 1.5 Thomas Jefferson SWCD 4 4/27/09 percent slopes 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 1.5 percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 39E Hazel loam, 25 to 45 1.5 percent slopes 40D Hazel very stony loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes 50D Manor loam, 15 to 25 1.5 percent slopes 55B McQueen loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 56B Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 93E Watt channery silt loam, 1.5 25 to 45 percent slopes Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 16 Chewacla silt loam Moderate 27B Elioak loam, 2 to 7 percent Moderate slopes 27C Elioak loam, 7 to 15 Moderate percent slopes 34B Glenelg loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 34C Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 High percent slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 High percent slopes 39E Hazel loam, 25 to 45 High percent slopes 40D Hazel very stony loam, 15 High to 25 percent slopes 50D Manor loam, 15 to 25 Moderate percent slopes 55B McQueen loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 56B Meadowville loam, 2 to 7 High percent slopes 93E Watt channery silt loam, High 25 to 45 percent slopes Thomas Jefferson SWCD 5 4/27/09