Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200032 Correspondence 2014-06-05 Johnathan Newberry From: Johnathan Newberry Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 5:24 PM To: 'George McCallum' Subject: RE: The Miller School of Albemarle, Inc. Great. Thank you very much. From: George McCallum [mailto:GMcCallum@amkpc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:40 PM To: Johnathan Newberry; Brian P. Smith, PE Cc: Gerri Stewart; Patrick L. France Subject: The Miller School of Albemarle, Inc. J.T. and Brian, The easement plat and the three deeds dedicating the permanent drainage easement, 390' sight distance easement, and stormwater management access easement have been recorded today in the Albemarle County Clerk's Office. Attached for your respective records and reference are scans of each recorded instrument with its recording receipt. The recording receipts have the Deed Book and page references. If you have any questions or need anything additional, please let me know. George George B. McCallum, Ill McCallum & Kudravetz, P.C. 250 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 phone: 434-293-8191 fax: 434-296-9641 email: gmccallum(c mkbc.com Johnathan Newberry From: Michelle Roberge Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:20 AM To: Johnathan Newberry Subject: FW: The Miller School New Entrance-wpo-2012-00049 Just an fyi. From: Ana Kilmer Sent:Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:17 AM To: gstewart(amillerschool.orq; Brian P. Smith Cc: Michelle Roberge; Kenny Thacker; Mark Hopkins Subject: The Miller School New Entrance -wpo-2012-00049 The$305,470 water protection performance bond has been posted and approved (erosion $249,280; stormwater $56,190). The permit and first year inspection fee has been paid. The stormwater agreement has been recorded. Please contact Mark Hopkins to determine when you can schedule the pre-construction meeting. Thank you Ana D. Kilmer Management Analyst County of Albemarle Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 akilmerPalbemarle.org } Johnathan Newberry w.► From: Brian Smith [bpspe@embargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:44 PM To: Glenn Brooks Cc: Johnathan Newberry Subject: FW: Miller School (WPO-2012-00049) Attachments: E1_ecp_PBC_Miller School WPO201200049.doc Glenn, Happy New Year! I hope you and your family enjoyed the holidays together! I sent this email to Michele and her auto-response was that she was out until the 11th. That is more than a week away and I don't want any further delayed if we can avoid it. Please read her review letter of the Miller School project that I refer to and my response below. Probably not the best re-start again with another reviewer and I'm sick and probably a little tired. But, none the less, enjoy the read. We'll get through this. Anything you can do to move this along will be appreciated. Thank you. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe@embarqmail.com From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspe@embargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:58 PM To: Michele Roberge (mroberge@albemarle.org) Cc: Johnathan Newberry (jnewberry@albemarle.org) Subject: FW: Miller School (WPO-2012-00049) Michele, Happy New Year! I sorry that we have not met yet, but I am the engineer for the Miller School's new entrance. JT forward to me your review memo dated December 13, 2012. I would like to respond to your comments. First, a little history. This project has been a rather lengthy one. Planners, engineers for the county and VDOT personnel have changed making this a more difficult project requiring me to bring the new ones up to date. Initially, we went to the BOS to see if we could even do this project as the stream buffer was affected. We gained their approval on the buffer disturbance but for some reason it did not include the critical slopes waiver, even though this information was shown on the plans and I requested it. I should have caught that at the meeting —my bad. After the meeting I was told by the county to match the toe of the steep baseball field slope with the left ditch line. This was designed, submitted and reviewed. Comments came back to move the road over further as the county would rather see a steeper slope than a little more encroachment on the buffer. A re-design was completed along with all the other items required for the final site plan waiver package, including items such as road plans, E & S plans, storm plans, calculations, roadway lighting, etc. These are in the county's hands now as I am requesting final approval. I hope you all are working on this. All of the items in Phil Custer's attached letter, except the bond request form, have been addressed. The migration plan was approved by Phil. See his email below. Please don't threaten me that the application will be withdrawn if comments are not received in 6 months. I realize this is a standard form item that all county reps use, but it doesn't read well as I write this response. I have been working diligently with all departments and VDOT to gain final approval. If the 6 months are approaching, simply call (I know it sounds old fashion) or email and inform me of upcoming date with 1 additional fees, applications, etc. want to avoid this. I don't think it wilPrriatter anyway as JT is hopefully scheduling a consent agenda for the BOS on the waiver items. How are you coming with this JT? BTW, Happy New Year to you too! I will take a look at your other comments and get back to you. My original tree well note and stop sign locations. The possibility of a retaining wall is crazy as the county requested this road relocation and said a steeper slope will be fine. I hope the contractor can stabilize this slope with blankets and a hydro-seeding mixture that includes adhesives. If not, the next step would be a perennial vegetative cover. I can't believe you are requiring an E & S plan for the existing gravel driveways in the flood plain. This is a flat area. The gravel will be scraped away and the soil re-seeded with mulch applied. If it rains a little mud may spread a few feet into the tall grass, but that will be it. A silt fence on one or both sides of the driveway will not be that effective. Can you take another look at this. Thank you. Let's stay in touch—communications are important. And please do not take this as an inflammatory response, it is not intended to come across that way. I'll let you know when you really piss me off © Take care and thank you in advance for your assistance. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bpspe(aiembargmail.com From: Philip Custer [mailto:pcuster(aalbemarle.orq] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:30 PM To: Brian Smith Subject: Miller School (WPO-2012-00049) Good evening, Attached is the comment letter from the review of the WPO plan for the new entrance travelway at the Miller School (WPO-2012-00049). The mitigation plan is hereby approved assuming no additional encroachments into the stream buffer are necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the review. Thanks, Phil 2 fSMITH,PE "� BRIAN P. CML ENGINEERING,INC 105 WEST HIGH STREET CHARLOrILSVILLE,VA 22902-5018 PHONE (434) 296-3644 FAx (434) 296-2041 EMAIL bpspe(a�embarcgmail.coni November 30, 2012 JT Newberry County of Albemarle Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: The Miller School New Entrance Road - Final Site Plan Response to comments Dear JT, I hope this letter finds you doing well. This is a follow up to Joanne Tu Purtsezova's comments as well as others with different dates. I will address them below in the order presented. Joanne's Memo dated June 20,2012 (SDP201200032) 1. The site plan waiver fee of$1,500 is attached. 2. The critical slopes topic was described very nicely by Phil Custer in his memo to you dated June 15, 2012. His only concern, prior to recommending this, was to verify that there would not be any disturbance of existing septic fields. The school has informed me this will not be problematic as none are within the area of construction. 3. This item discusses the need for curb and gutter. The reason we are discussing this item is the ordinance requires a site plan when a new road intersects a state road, and a curb and gutter is required for a site plan. This is true for most of your requested items. The new entrance is similar to a subdivision road where a rural section is acceptable. The existing entrance is a rural section. It is in keeping with the rural atmosphere of the area. The school desires a rural section. On the environmental side, the side ditches provide an opportunity for the runoff to enter the ground water—curb and gutter cannot do this. 4. The travelway has been widened from 18-feet to 20-feet. 5. Landscaping: The conservation checklist has been completed and added to the plans. 6. Lighting: The road lighting plan has been revised with an LLF of 1.0, is based on initial lumens and the spillover onto the state road does not exceed 0.5 fc. The manufacturers cut sheets are attached. 7. VDOT easement plat: I will be working on this with Joel and a surveyor. 8. Easement plat review fee: understood - $200. GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING JT Newberry November 30,2012 °'o' Page 2 Preliminary Site Plan Content 1. Written justification for curb and gutter is noted above. The travelway has been increased to the recommended 20-feet. The connector roads have been redesigned so that we do not have any slopes exceeding 10%. 2. This information is on the cover sheet. 3. Topography: done 4. Watercourses: done 5. Street characteristics: done 6. Seal: done 7. Understood. Additional Final Site Plan Content 1. Seal: done 2. Landscaping: The conservation checklist has been completed and added to the plans. 3. Signature copies: 4 sets are understood. 4. Legend: done 5. Street section: done 6. Outdoor lighting: The street lighting has been revised as requested. Joanne's Memo dated June 20,2012 (SDP201200032)—Waivers 1. Critical Slopes Waiver Request: The critical slopes topic was described very nicely by Phil Custer in his memo to you dated June 15, 2012. His only concern, prior to recommending this, was to verify that there would not be any disturbance of existing septic fields. The school has informed me this will not be problematic as none are within the area of construction. 2. Travelway Width Waiver Request: The width has been increased to 20-feet. No waiver request is being made. 3. Curb and Gutter Waiver Request: The new entrance is similar to a subdivision road where a rural section is acceptable. The existing entrance serving the school is now a rural section. It is in keeping with the rural atmosphere of the area. The school desires a rural section. On the environmental side, the side ditches provide an opportunity for the runoff enter the ground water—curb and gutter cannot do this. BRIAN P. SMITH , PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING JT Newberry November 30,2012 Page 3 Joanne's email dated June 21,2012 (SDP201200032) regarding VDOT's comments 1. A speed study was completed in September 2009 and shared with other VDOT representatives at that time. It revealed an 85th percentile speed limit of 30 mph in both directions. This was used for sight distance purposes. This study has been shared with Joel. 2. Unfortunately, a new junction box is the only solution to the transfer of runoff under the road. The hydraulic grade line computations have been performed as well as a junction box design. They are attached. A drainage easement and a maintenance agreement will be provided. 3. Land Use Permit: understood. Philip Custer's email dated June 22,2012 (WPO-2012-00049)—mitigation 1. This email noted the mitigation approval. Philip Custer's memo dated June 22,2012 (WPO-2012-00049) 1. Another copy of the June 7, 2010 letter is included with this letter. 2. A copy of the Corps approval is attached. 3. The diversion to trap#2 has been extended to the ditch and has been labeled RWD with the recommended note and an alternative to install a temporary culvert. A 20-scale blowup has been provided of trap#1. A 10-scale didn't fit the page but one can see the wet/dry storage limits, weir and the wet outlet grate better without all the other lines. 4. These dimensions have been corrected. 5. This note has been added. 6. The latest approved E& S construction notes have been used. 7. A bond estimate request form will be provided. Philip Custer's email dated June 25,2012 (SDP201200032)—critical slopes This email is Phil's request for septic information to complete his critical slopes report. Philip Custer's memo dated June 15,2012 (SDP-2012-00032)—critical slopes This is Phil's critical slopes report stating he has no objection if septic fields are not a factor. Again, I asked the owner about this and he informed me this will not be problem. BRIAN P. SMITH , PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING JT Newberry November 30,2012 ""' '"'` Page 4 Philip Custer's memo dated June 22,2012 (SDP-2012-00032)—site plan waiver 1. Four items to address a. The watershed note was added to the cover sheet. b. The traffic counts were doubled and transferred to the cover sheet. c. The plans will be signed by me. d. The pavement radii have been added and they either equal or exceed the minimums. 2. These items discuss the road width (which we have widened to the recommended 20- feet), the curbing(which, as stated earlier, we are asking for a waiver), and the slopes steeper than 10% (which we have changed to this maximum). 3. Seven (7) stop signs and one (1) street sign at the state road have been added to the plans. 4. The road alignments near the tennis courts, both horizontal and vertical alignments, have been adjusted to both help with the intersection grades and the tree wells/retaining walls. This created only one tree well/retaining walls and it is just below 4-feet. 5. Both the general construction notes and the street notes have been added on C2.0. 6. Groundcover for slopes steeper than 3 to 1 have been addressed with notes in the lower right hand portion of C7.2. 7. These culverts and the sumps at the inlets, as well as all the others, are now clearly labeled with invert elevations, grade lines and direction flow arrows. 8. This drainage structure was changed to a box culvert. 9. Even though there was plenty of head available and the pond reduction possibility above, I took the ultra-safe approach and increased the diameter to 24". 10. I understand VDOT's involvement. 11. Understood. Thank you for your comments. As always, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, AIL( Brian P. Smith, PE President Enclosures (/ cr-) C z of L't/144 Cc: Mr. Preston Stallings Account ID:09-011-00/JT Newberry 1 BRIAN P. SMITH , PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING BRIAN P.SMITH,PE . �..� CML ENGINEERING,INC 105 West High Street Charlottesville,VA 22902-5018 Phone (434) 296-3644 Fax (434) 296-2041 Email bpspe@embarqmail.com April 30, 2012 Bill Fritz County of Albemarle Dept. of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: The Miller School -New Entrance Site Plan Waiver Request Dear Bill, As you know, the Miller School is in the process of gaining county approval for a new entrance. Currently, we have been through the BOS process to allow disturbance of a stream buffer. This process included discussions and plan reviews with VDOT to determine an acceptable entrance location on Miller School Road (Rt. 635). It also included discussions and plan reviews with county engineering staff with regard to the new road alignment, grading, mitigation and erosion control. I understand you have determined a site plan will be required. We commonly see site plans for new structures, their different uses and respective parking lots. But, your interpretation of the zoning ordinance is solely based on the fact the school wants to create a new entrance on a state road. You have explained that you cannot completely waive the site plan process. However, as an option, I can request a waiver of certain items in sections 32.5 and 3.26 (preliminary and final site plan content, respectively). Therefore, per county requirements, this letter is to request a waiver of certain details of a site plan for a new entrance to the Miller School. The waiver request is for a portion of Tax Map 72 Parcel 32. This request is to waive the following underlined requirements of Section 32.5 (Preliminary Site Plan Content)and Section 32.6 (Final Site Plan Content) of the Zoning Ordinance. The items that are not unlined are being provided as they are part of the road design, grading, mitigation and/or erosion control. As a result of a discussion with Phil Custer I am also requesting a waiver on curbing and requiring a travel way width of 20-feet. I am proposing an 18-foot pavement width with a support GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 -.,,, .•e, . Page 2 letter from the school indicating the volume of traffic is significantly below the level of a rural subdivision road as defined by VDOT. This level of road can be designed at 18-feet. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Brian P. Smith, PE President Cc: Mr. Preston Stallings Account ID:09-011-00/Bill Fritz I BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 rise Page 3 32.5 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CONTENT 32.5.1 Sixteen (16)clearly legible blue or black line copies of a preliminary site plan shall be submitted to the department of planning and community development. (32.3.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87) 32.5.2 If revisions are necessary, seven(7) full-sized revised copies and one (1) reduced revised copy no larger than eleven(11) inches by seventeen(17) inches shall be submitted by the revision deadline. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.3 All waiver, variation and substitution requests in accordance with section 32.3.10 shall be submitted with the preliminary site plan and clearly state the specific items being requested for waiver, variation or substitution. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.4 The preliminary site plan shall be dimensioned to the accuracy standards required in section 32.5.6.r. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.5 The preliminary site plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty(20) feet or to such scale as may be approved by the agent in a particular case; no sheet shall exceed forty-two (42) inches by thirty-six (36) inches in size. The preliminary site plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the several sheets join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east. (Added 5-1-87) 32.5.6 The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information: a. The name of the development; names of the owner, developer and individual who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; zoning; descriptions of all variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site; magisterial district; county and state; north point; scale; one datum reference for elevation (where section 30.3, flood hazard overlay district, is involved, United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topography); the source of the topography; the source of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; date of drawing; date and description of latest revision; owner, zoning,tax map and parcel number and present use of adjacent parcels; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building separation requirements; a vicinity sketch showing the property and its relationship with adjoining streets, subdivisions and other landmarks; and boundary dimensions. Added 5-1-87) b. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use, including: proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type; gross residential density; square footage of recreation area,percent and acreage of open BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING , Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 New ,,,•, Page 4 space; maximum square footage for commercial and industrial uses;maximum number of employees; maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage if industrial; maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking including maximum amount required and amount provided; and maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; if a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. (Added 5-1-87) c. If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development. (Added 5- 1-87) d. Existing topography(up to twenty [20] percent slope, maximum five [5] foot contours, over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours). Proposed grading(maximum five [5] foot contours) supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty- five (25)percent or greater. Existing topography for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty(50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the agent. e. Existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4.c. (Added 5-1-87) f. The name and location of all watercourses and other bodies of water adjacent to or on the site. Indicate if the site is located within a reservoir watershed. (Added 5-1- 87) g. Location of septic setback lines from watercourses including intermittent streams and other bodies of water. (Added 5-1-87) h. One hundred year flood plain limits as shown on the official flood insurance maps for Albemarle County. (Added 5-1-87) i. Existing and proposed streets, access easements, alley easements and rights-of- way, and travelways, together with street names, state route numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline radii, and pavement widths. (32.4.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87, 2-6-02) j. Location and size of: existing water and sanitary sewer facilities and easements; storm sewer facilities, drainage channels; and drainage easements. (Added 5-1-87) k. Proposed conceptual lay-out for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drainage facilities including storm detention ponds or structures, indicating direction of flow in all pipes and watercourses with arrows. (Added 5-1-87) BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING , Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 New' Page 5 1. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. (Added 5- 1-87) m. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. (Added 5-1-87) n. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements including: buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures; walkways; fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and service areas together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways; and signs. (Added 5-1-87) o. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. (Added 5-1-87) p. Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9 if required. (Added 5-1-87) q. Where deemed appropriate by the agent due to the intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current Virginia Department of Transportation rates. Indicate the estimated vehicles per day and direction of travel for all connections to a public road. (Added 5-1-87) r. The preliminary site plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy: 1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines - one foot in one thousand (1:1,000) feet; 2. Existing contours - one-half(%2) of the contour interval required in section 32.5.6.d above; 3. Proposed contours - within five (5) feet horizontally and vertically; 4. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features - within five (5) feet; 5. Proposed structures, roads,parking lots and other improvements - within five (5) feet. (Added 5-1-87) s. The agent or the commission may require additional information to be shown on the preliminary site plan as deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient information for the agent or the commission to adequately review a the preliminary site plan. (Added 5-1-87) BRIAN P. SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 N,,,,. Page 6 32.5.7 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT INFORMATION The draft groundwater management plans and aquifer testing work plans required by Albemarle County Code §§ 17-403 and 17-404, as applicable, shall be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary site plan. The requirements of Albemarle County Code §§ 17-403 and 17-404 shall be satisfied prior to final site plan approval. 32.6 FINAL SITE PLAN CONTENT 32.6.1 A final site plan together with amendments thereto shall be prepared and sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect, each of whom shall be licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Added 5-1-87) 32.6.2 A final site plan shall be prepared on mylar, sepia or other such transparency material which shall be termed as the master drawing. Two (2) clearly legible blue or black line copies of the master drawing shall be submitted to the department of planning and community development. (Added 5-1-87) In addition, if review is required by the commission, one (1)reduced copy no larger than eleven(11) inches by seventeen (17) inches in size shall be submitted. 32.6.3 Two (2) copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted with the final site plan if not previously submitted. (Added 5-1-87) 32.6.4 When the site plan is ready for final approval, the full-sized revised master drawing and a transparency copy of the master drawing shall be submitted for the agent's signature. Once the agent has signed the master drawing, he shall return the master drawing to the developer and the developer shall submit four(4)print copies of the signed master drawing to the agent. (Added 5-1-87) 32.6.5 Unless otherwise approved by the agent, the final site plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty(20) feet or larger or to such a scale as may be approved by the agent in a particular case; no sheet shall exceed thirty-six(36) inches by forty-two (42) inches in size. The site plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east. (Added 5-1-87) 32.6.6 The final site plan shall reflect conditions of approval of the preliminary site plan. The final site plan shall contain the following information in addition to all the information required on the preliminary site plan: a. Specific written schedules or notes as necessary to demonstrate that the requirements of this chapter are being satisfied. In addition to preliminary site BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING . Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 Ne,,,. , Page 7 plan information, indicate if sale or rental units; number of bedrooms per unit, and number of units per building if multi-family; specifications for recreational facilities. b. Proposed grading(up to twenty [20] percent slope, maximum two [2] foot contours; over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum five [5] foot contours). c. Detailed plans for proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities, including: all pipe sizes, types and grades;proposed connections to existing or proposed central systems; location and dimensions of proposed easements and whether the same are to be publicly or privately maintained; profiles and cross sections of all water and sewer lines including clearance where lines cross; all water main locations and sizes; valves and fire hydrant locations; all sanitary sewer appurtenances by type and number; the station on the plan to conform to the station shown on the profile and indicate the top and invert elevation of each structure. d. Detailed construction drainage and grading plans: 1. Profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing: existing and proposed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities; typical channel cross sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for existing channels intended to remain; 2. Profiles of all storm sewer systems showing existing and proposed grades; 3. Plan view of all drainage systems with all structures, pipes and channels numbered or lettered on the plan and profile views. Show sufficient dimensions and bench marks to allow field stake out of all proposed work from the boundary lines; 4. A drainage summary table for culverts, storm sewer and channels as described in the following example: Structure Invert Invert Number Description Length In Out Slope Remarks 1 42" RCP 50' 424.50 424.00 1.00% Provide Class III 2, EW 2 DI-3B L=8 426.00 432.00 - IS-1Top 3 PG-2A 400' 420.00 400.00 5.00% D=12" 4 Grade Swale 200' 420.00 415.00 2.50% D=18" BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 `„e Page 8 5. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan; 6. General notes,typical sections, and details of all items not covered by Virginia Department of Transportation standard drawings; 7. Flood plain limits for the one hundred year storm for all watercourses with an upstream drainage area of fifty(50) acres or more provided that the county engineer may waive this requirement for drainage areas of less than one hundred(100) acres upon determination that such information is unnecessary for review of the proposed development. e. Typical street sections together with specific street sections where street cut or fill is five (5) feet or greater; centerline curve data; radius of curb returns or edge of pavement; location, type and size of proposed ingress to and egress from the site; together with culvert size; symmetrical transition of pavement at intersection with existing street; the edge of street surface or face of curb for full length of proposed street; when proposed streets intersect with or adjoin existing streets or travel- ways, both edges of existing pavement or travelway together with curb and gutter indicated for a minimum of one hundred (100) feet or the length of connection, whichever is the greater distance. f. Signature panel for department of planning and community development. g. For all parking and loading areas, indicate: size; angle of stalls; width of aisles and specific number of spaces required and provided, and method of computation. Indicate type of surfacing for all paved or gravel areas. h. The final site development plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy: 1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines - nearest one-one hundredth(0.01) of a foot; 2. Existing contours - one-half(1/2) of the contour interval required in section 32.6.6.b above; 3. Proposed contours - within one (1) foot horizontally and vertically; 4. Spot elevations - within one-tenth(0.10) of a foot; 5. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features - within two (2) feet. For critical structures, accuracy should be within one-tenth(0.10) of a foot; BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING . Bill Fritz April 30, 2012 .,,,,,,. Page 9 6. Proposed structures, roads,parking lots and other improvements -within one hundredth(0.01) of a foot. (Added 5-1-87) i. Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9. (Added 5-1-87) j. Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire. BRIAN P . SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING A / `,... 1000 Samuel Miller L Charlottesville,Virginia 22903 MILLER P:434.823.4805 F:434.823.6617 SCHOOL www.millerschool.org of ALBEMARLE April 6, 2012 Mr. Brian P. Smith 105 West High Street Charlottesville, VA22902 Dear Mr. Smith: We have taken a traffic survey of both our Service Entrance and our Main Entrance at Miller School of Albemarle over the last week. We learned that we have an average of 68 vehicles that enter and leave the campus daily. Of the vehicles that come onto our campus, the breakdown is as follows: Main Entrance 51 cars, SUV, pickup trucks Service Entrance 12 cars, SUV, pickup trucks Service Entrance 5 service vehicles (UPS, FedEx, tractor/trailer/school bus TOTAL: 68 These numbers reflect daily (Monday — Friday) patterns. On the weekend we average 25 vehicles. Sincerely, t 17leefivce Patrick L. France Headmaster Brian Smith From: Philip Custer[pcuster@albemarle.org] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:48 PM To: Brian Smith Cc: Joanne Tu Purtsezova; Bill Fritz Subject: RE: The Miller School New Entrance: Checklist Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Brian, As I mentioned in the meeting today,the drive from the public road to the school will be considered a "travelway" as defined by the Zoning Ordinance and subject to all regulations that apply to travelways. In the meeting I mentioned the 10% maximum slope and 20ft width requirements, but I forgot to mention the curbing requirement (this is assuming the VA Supreme Court Decision also limited the CE ability to grant waivers). These design waivers should be added to your•4-- request. Engineering's role with these waiver requests is to advise the planners "whether the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the public health, safety, or welfare." Given this limited scope,when asked, I would simply state that a 20ft travelway is safer than a 18ft one. If I were you, I would strive to make the point in your request that it would meet VDOT standards for a rural subdivision road, if the ADT<400 (meaning you should provide ADT estimates in the site plan submittal). If you provided this justification, I would evaluate this claim for the planner. See the VDOT table below. 1 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDAftS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED US'C•'{UBDMSION STREETS(GS-S TABLE 2 —SHOULDER AND DITCH SECTION' SHOULDER AND DITCH ROADW/ MINIMUM HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROLS DESIGN Minimum cinch width(front slope)should be PROJECTED SPEED Maximum 2:1 Cut or Fill Slope greater,based on slopes of 3:1 or flatter(C TRAFFIC (MPH) slopes promote homeowner maintenance of VOLUME (ADT) (NOT CURVE DATA MINIMUM MINIMUM PAVEMENT POSTED SIGHT DISTANCE WIDTH Mlh SPEED) MAXIMUM „ INTER• NO PARKNG PARKING WI. CENTERLINE SUPER- n GRADE STOPPING BOTH RADIUS £LEV 12) SECTION PARKING t SIDE f4) (3) (5) (5) SIDES 5) UP TO 2000 25 200' NONE NOTE(6) 155' 280' 24'(1) 24-1I) 20(11 2001 TO 4000 30 335' 4ONE NOTE(7) 200' 335' 26'(10) 31'00) 36'(10) NOTES: 1 If tit Local Street has I point of access and A0T,400 vpd.assn the roadway width insist m For streets with volumes over 4000 or serving heavy Tit rig 1001 TO 4000 vpd).Fc 0-400 ADT QNLYnrininrrn pw.en iI -fay(*Padua commercial or Industtuse i vac& vthe appropriate gement ttit/018�Nt design standard.(see VDOTs Road Despn Mari ll 2. 2004 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 3(Page 112.Eahrat 3.1) The roadway with the hgheit vo'vme w+s govern Mt sigh! distance 3 2004 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 0(Page 861,Eh bet 9.551 Foe grades greater than 3, recalculated Right of Way requirements can be found vt B-4.1 Right gap must be adjusted and required sight distance Of Way 4 2004 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 3(Page 151,Eah .t 3.16) For volumes 200!—4000 vpd,design critena for the Cowtor 5 Clear zone width for UP TO 2000 vpd is 7'and dear zone vanes for 2001 TO 4000 vpd is 10' functional class was uttized so doctrine mn:nxim design values. 6 2004 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5(Page 3511) Lpwer de9pn.,.> (�*re* ) rnalr the termed 7. 2004 AASHTO Green Bock Chapter v(Page 432) proirtdted, e+y:�lt+(s,dedfpied• in'a000rdance aidiffee AASHTO r BOv1(Or MSF1 O5( tlp(iters Por OnelneejIti pew of 8. 2004 AASHTO Green Book Chapter 5(Page 334.Eahiat 5-5) V F tovi,40Gs}>r,'.teftat`RaadS;iyll[lTo9)0). The„darter 9. Add an additional 3'if guards]is req.led. sli** :Cpstl i7�,l**voigr;7n'aduwioedde;ii*K4 -0000 Plan atlike)Wiiin4lefaalift4efriedn.bffenegitiaed, 10. Lane widths may vary between th'-12'feet fee coieca:es m111'20014000 ROT_Widths shoe J1n.enp eri+rsi,Oeeeif-iMii wile' and 9t�ed by a-*en* decreased by 2 feet'(26 feet to 24 feet),(31 feet to 29 feet)and(36(eet 1x�34 feel)he f> anal:;°e ginea. D VOOT's'sea id d.speed sidY ung judgment subject to VDOT appear* r G be`p lie *: _rite:de e�pr` d a 'aPPcotted.by VDOT fow,any.,�oidads:Paned_ Elle`* /ory speed t�nkand'platwiEdacr elrtatoe iio the Stasisjisiem. There are no other"N/A” designations on the checklist that I disagree with. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspe@aembargmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:21 PM To: Philip Custer Subject: The Miller School New Entrance: Checklist Hi Phil, I am assuming you will be in the preapp meeting this afternoon at 4 PM for the Miller School. The purpose of this meeting is to see what I need to submit for a site plan or site plan waiver submittal for this new entrance. I have edited a checklist of items to address in my design and have attached it. Would you be kind enough to review and confirm the N/A items? The other items I plan on including. Thanks. Brian P. Smith, PE 2 N BRIAN P.SMITH,PE CIVIL ENGINEERING,INC 105 WEST HIGH STREET CHARLOFIESVILLE,VA 22902-5018 PHONE (434)296-3644 FAX (434)296-2041 bpspe@embarqmail.com April 30, 2012 Mr. Bill Fritz County of Albemarle Zoning& Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: The Miller School—New Entrance Critical Slopes Waiver Request Dear Bill, This letter represents the required critical slopes waiver request. Please refer to the attached set of plans for this project. Below are my thoughts with regard to the concerns listed in Section 4.2.5.a.1 of the Code entitled Request. Concern 1: "Rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock" It is recognized the development on slopes are at a greater risk of soil movement than on flat terrain, especially during the crucial construction stage. This project has a mandated Erosion& Sediment Control Plan that will address the typical safe guards and control structures to minimize rapid and/or large-scale movement of soil during construction. Concern 2: "Excessive stormwater run-off' Continued protection of our streams and environment are more important now than ever before. Excessive runoff comes from increased impervious areas. The new entrance road will increase impervious areas. To mitigate this, the school will be converting an equal or greater amount of existing impervious areas to grass. Concern 3: "Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water" Siltation has its greatest risk to bodies of water during the short window of construction. After the vegetation grow-in period this risk is lessened with each passing year. Erosion control methods installed and managed by the contractor and reviewed and inspected by government entities will minimize the potential for erosion. In addition, if inspections discover challenges during construction, additional controls can be implemented. These temporary controls will only be removed after the area is well established. GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING Bill Fritz Nei/ The Miller Sch —New Entrance April 30, 2012 Page 2 Concern 4" "Loss of aesthetic resource" For some,the disturbance of critical slopes could be seen as a loss of aesthetic resources. If one is considering the existing tree cover on the disturbed critical slopes as an aesthetic resource, than for this particular project, one might consider the 2 to 1 tree replacement in the floodway area of the Mechum's River where thousands of seedlings will be planted. Concern 5: "In the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare" This item is not applicable. In summary,through the implementation of the Mitigation Plan and the E& S Control Plan,I think you will find the concerns of disturbing critical slopes have been suitably addressed. Further, it was confirmed during the BOS stream buffer waiver process this new entrance will provide a much needed, improved and safer access to the school—a consideration of the waiver process(section 4.2.5.a.3.d). I hope this information is helpful in your review. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Brian P. Smith, PE President Attachment Cc: Mr. Preston Stallings Account ID:09-011-00/critical slopes waiver request BRIAN P. SMITH, PE GOLF COURSE DESIGN • ENGINEERING • SITE DESIGN • LAND PLANNING Philip Custer `4.0. ,.....' From: Philip Custer Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 5:52 PM To: Joanne Tu Purtsezova Subject: Critical Slope Waiver for the Miller School Attachments: E1_csw_PBC_Miller School Critical Slope Waiver SDP201200032.doc Joanne, Attached is my analysis of the applicant's request for a critical slope waiver for the Miller School Entrance Drive (SDP- 2012-00032). A full recommendation cannot be provided until septic information is provided by the applicant. I will do my best to get you the review of the site plan on Monday. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil X3072 1 t. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Joanne Tu Purtsezova,Planning Review From: Phil Custer,Engineering Review Date: 15 June 2012 Subject: Miller School Entrance Drive; Critical Slope Waiver Request(SDP-2012-00032) 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 slopes currently proposed as being disturbed are mostly associated with a small intermittent stream valley. Half of these slopes are natural and the other half appear to be manmade slopes created when baseball field was constructed. The applicant is requesting to disturb these critical slopes to create a new main entrance drive to the school that is both safe and aesthetically pleasing. The school has two existing entrances, but one has poor sight distance and the other accesses the site through a not-so-scenic route, is narrow, and possesses steep grades. In 2010,the Board of Supervisor's authorized the construction of this new entrance drive through a stream buffer which is normally restricted by ordinance. This request to disturb critical slopes is essentially the same. Areas Acres Total site 1047 acres approximately Critical slopes incalculable 10-20%of site Critical slopes disturbed 1.25acre 0.05-0.1% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: This disturbance could possibly be considered exempt since the reason for disturbance is to access the site. However, since an existing entrance with adequate sight distance exists, not disturbing these critical slopes to construct a new entrance needs to be considered as a reasonable alternative when evaluating whether the disturbance is exempt. 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. There are additional concerns with this application compared to average critical slope disturbance requests because of the restricted space for ESC measures. Engineering staff will only approve a plan compliant with state standards. "excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will increase for the area where critical slopes are disturbed,but most of this runoff will be conveyed in a stable ditch to an existing stream with a large enough watershed that this increased runoff will be insignificant. "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. There are additional concerns with this Albemarle Ctrtnty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 application compared to average critical slope disturbance requests because of the restricted space for ESC measures. Engineering staff will only approve a plan compliant with state standards. "loss of aesthetic resource" Engineering staff rarely provides opinion of aesthetic value of critical slopes but will point out that this disturbance was previously unanimously authorized by the Board of Supervisors though in reference to the stream buffer. "septic effluent" No information regarding the septic fields for the parcel has been provided so engineering staff cannot conclusively state that the current proposal's effects in the event of a septic system failure. The applicant should provide more information on this subject so this health, safety, and welfare factor can be put to rest. A final recommendation cannot be provided by engineering until information regarding the septic systems is provided. Absent any negative septic systems revelations, engineering review will have no objection regarding the approval of this critical slope waiver,mostly on the basis that this disturbance has already been approved by the Board of Supervisors in relation to the stream buffer, acknowledging that challenges may materialize with ESC plan review. Philip Custer New, i✓ From: Philip Custer Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 5:30 PM To: Joanne Tu Purtsezova Subject: Engineering Review of Miller School Site Plan Waiver(SDP-2012-00032) Attachments: E1_spw_PBC_Miller School Site Plan SDP201200032.doc Joanne, Attached is the engineering comment letter from my first review of the site plan waiver for the Miller School (SDP-2012- 00032). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Phil 1 • NNW' A '4/1111101 �' �� !11111 4,1114 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Joanne Tu Purtsezova,Planning Review From: Phil Custer, Engineering Review Date: 22 June 2012 Subject: Miller School Entrance Drive; Site Plan Waiver(SDP-2012-00032) Engineering has reviewed the site plan waiver for the Miller School Entrance Drive(SDP-2012-00032), received 25 May 2012, and offers the following comments. 1. The applicant has included in his site plan waiver submittal a list of all items from sections 18- 32.5.6 and 18-32.6.5. Engineering review offers no objection to the waiving all items requested by the applicant except the following sections: a. 18-32.5.6.f The applicant should identify that the site is located within a reservoir watershed. b. 18-32.5.6.q The applicant should formally include on the cover sheet the traffic counts for the site. The ADT for the site is double the count from the Headmaster's letter because a trip in and out of the site counts as two trips. The review of the rest of the plan is contingent on these values. c. 18-32.6.1 The plan must be stamped and signed by a licensed professional. d. 18-32.6.5.e The applicant should identify the edge of pavement radii at all intersections for the new travelway. The internal intersections must have a minimum radius of 15ft. The minimum radius for the intersection on the public street is 25ft. 2. Travelways must be a minimum of 20ft wide, possess curbing, and be no steeper than 10%. The applicant has requested a waiver of the first two standards and proposed a rural shoulder and ditch section with 18ft of pavement. This comment will serve as engineering's perspective on the requested waivers per 18-4.12.2.c.2. An 18ft wide travelway would not equally or better serve the public health, safety, or welfare when compared to a 20ft wide travelway. It should be noted that the VDOT width requirement for streets with less than 400 trips a day is 18ft. A roadside ditch is less efficient and is more likely to erode than curbing which would not equally or better serve the public health, safety, or welfare. Though, it is understood that waivers of curbing requirements are often granted in cases like this for"rural area"aesthetics. In which case, engineering will review ditch linings to make sure they are sized appropriately. Although it wasn't requested,I will comment on a possible waiver of the 10%maximum grade for travelways. The applicant shows a maximum grade for Connector Road A at 15%which would not equally or better serve the public health, safety, or welfare when compared to the county's 10% standard. It should be noted that the maximum grade accepted by VDOT is now 15%, consistent with AASHTO standards. However,the grade transitions at the top and bottom of Connector Road A are unsafe. Raising the grade of the loop road so this connector road is not as steep is recommended. 3. Please provide stop signs or equivalent pavement markings at all new perpendicular intersections. Albemarle Ctgslty Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 4. Please provide a typical detail within the set for the retaining walls used to protect the large trees on site. County policy is to limit retaining wall heights to 4ft for those without a handrail. Given the nature of the site,handrails on these retaining walls would look unusual, so please examine ways of reducing the height of retaining walls to less than 4ft. For instance,the wall at Sta. 21+50 could be reduced by extending the 10% grade farther up the hill(which would also help with the extreme grade on Connector Road A)and providing another culvert at Sta. 21+95 and a 3:1 slope from 2ft off the edge of pavement to the bottom of the retaining wall. 5. Please include in the set the County's General Construction Notes found in the latest edition of the design manual. 6. Please provide a low maintenance groundcover for all slopes steeper than 3:1 on the plan. Special consideration should be provided to the area of the 1.5:1 slopes. 7. Please show grading for a sump condition for the culvert at Sta. 17+14 and specify its depth. Please also specify the sump depth for the culvert at Sta. 18+55. 8. Circular culverts are not allowed on perennial streams. The culvert upstream of the junction box has a watershed of 58acres and is likely perennial. 9. The culvert at Sta. 37+08 has a headwater of greater than 1.5 times the diameter of the pipe which is usually the maximum allowed by VDOT and is the standard the county reviews plans to as well. But,recognizing the undocumented reduction of flows due to the lily pond and the benefit of metering peak discharges to help reduce erosion in the stream channel,the culvert is approved as designed. No change to the plan is required by this comment. 10. VDOT approval is required. 11. This site plan cannot be approved until the ESC plan is approved Michelle Roberge From: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) [Nathran.Austin@vdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:49 AM To: Michelle Roberge Cc: Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Subject: RE: Miller School - Review Comments Michelle, Based on the comments below, I have no additional comment to add concerning the junction box. Troy Austin, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Land Development—South Culpeper District P.O. Box 1017 11430 James Madison Highway Troy,VA 22974 Phone: (434)589-5871 Fax: (434) 589-3967 From: Michelle Roberge [mailto:mroberge@albemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:18 AM To: Austin, Nathran. (VDOT) Subject: FW: Miller School - Review Comments Sorry, I forwarded the wrong email. -Michelle From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspe(&embargmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:14 AM To: Michelle Roberge Subject: FW: Miller School - Review Comments Michelle, Here is the approval from VDOT. I think JT was copied, but you were not. Please note new contact info below Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 4835 Three Chopt Road Troy, VA 22974 (434) 296-3644 (c) bpspe@embargmail.com From: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) [mailto:Megan.Oleynik(avdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 2:41 PM To: Brian Smith 1 Cc: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT);*mejnewberryCaalbemarle.orq Subject: FW: Miller School - Review Comments Brian, We have no objections to your revised drainage calculations. Thanks, Megan From: Ikenberry, Steve G. P.E. (VDOT) Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 2:34 PM To: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) Subject: RE: Miller School - Review Comments Megan, I have reviewed the calculations and have no additional comments. I have no objection to the approval of this plan. Steve Ikenberry, P.E. District Hydraulics Engineer Culpeper District Location and Design (540)829-7548 From: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:21 AM To: Ikenberry, Steve G. P.E. (VDOT) Subject: FW: Miller School - Review Comments Steve, Would it be possible for you to take a look at the attached revised calculations for HGL and the grate inlet sent by the engineer and let me know if you have any additional comments?Thanks for your help and your quick response! Megan From: Brian Smith [mailto:bpspeembargmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:29 AM To: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) Cc: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT); jnewberry(aalbemarle.orq Subject: RE: Miller School - Review Comments Megan, I just looked at my HGL calc's. If the HGL is increased by 3.2 feet, then the height increases to 611.85, rather than 608.7, still under the rim elevation of 613.50. See attached. Is this acceptable? I'll work on the grate revision next. Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc. 105 West High Street Charlottesville,VA 22902 (434) 296-3644 (w) (434) 296-2041 (f) bps_pe@embarcimail.com 2 Nier, Noe From: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) [mailto:Megan.Oleynik(avdot.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:44 AM To: bpspe(aembargmail.com Cc: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT); jnewberry@ albemarle.orq Subject: FW: Miller School - Review Comments Brian, Please see the comments below on site drainage provided by the VDOT District Hydraulics Engineer. Thanks, Megan From: Ikenberry, Steve G. P.E. (VDOT) Sent:Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:08 AM To: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) Subject: Miller School - Review Comments Megan, We have completed our review of the Drainage Computations for the subject project and offer the following: 1. The Hydraulic Grade Line computations beginning with the existing 4'x4' Box Culvert should start with the HGL water surface elevation at 80%of the height of the box at the outlet end (elev.or 602.9 (599.7+3.2'), not the actual outlet end invert elevation. (VDM Sec.9.4.9.2) 2. The analysis of the flow depth at the DI-7 Type Ill Grate between the 2 Box Culverts should be performed with the grate 50% blocked to account for debris blockage. (VDM Sec. 9.4.7.2) Steve Ikenberry, P.E. District Hydraulics Engineer Culpeper District Location and Design (540) 829-7548 3