The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About020-92 Salvation Army Headquarters - Stonewall District - BackfileRECEIPT 02,) AMOUNT DUE AMOUNTPAID i s BALANCE DUE PAID BY ❑ CASH F-1 CHECK ❑ OTHER FREDERICK (;uuiv LANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601, 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS THE SUM OF,� FOR -4 D ATE i BY �� DOLLARS S if * STAFF SITE PLAN CHECKLIST * This application is not complete if the following are not included: 1. One set of comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; -OK- 9113l95 ✓ VDOT — OK - 121Z I JZ ✓ Sanitation Authority - aK - 9 I18 hz- V Inspections Dept. -OK- 9 Fire Marshal O K - I f ZS�S—� County Engineer Airport Authority _ 2. One copy of the Site Plan application. _ ' 3. Five copies of the Site Plan. 4. One reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required). 5. One 35mm. slide of the Site Plan (if required). TRACKING Date / Application received. All necessary agency comments received. Fee Paid (amount $ Site Plan to Planning Commission via bi-monthly. City of Winchester Town of Stephens City Town of Middletown Health Dept. Parks & Recreation Soil & Water Conservation Dist. /✓A' Site Plan heard by Planning Commission (if required). Revisions received (if required). / q Date of approval. �lx'lqf Info added to annual report diskette. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 065-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 21, 1994 Lieutenant Jeffery Miracle The Salvation Army 303 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: The Salvation Army Site Plan Approval Dear Lieutenant Miracle: The Frederick County Planning Department administratively approved Site Plan #020-92 of The Salvation Army, on March 14, 1994. The approved site plan calls for the construction of a 16,736 square feet facility to contain a chapel, offices, classrooms, meeting rooms, and transient housing, the creation of a paved parking lot containing 87 regular parking spaces and four disabled parking spaces with appropriate signage and disabled ramps, curb and gutter, and perimeter and interior landscaping, the installation of a dumpster pad that is enclosed by a six foot high solid wooden fence and latched gate, a business sign, two fire hydrants, a gravel fire lane protected by bollards and a chain, four light poles, a perimeter landscaped buffer which utilizes the existing tree line and proposes the planting of two evergreen trees and one deciduous tree every ten linear feet, and all appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures. I have provided you with two copies of the final site plan. This will enable you to provide the contractor with a copy and keep a copy for your records. Please contact this office to schedule a final inspection of this site once all improvements are complete. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, L01 il- L- . Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW enclosure cc: Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., Stonewall District Supervisor T. Roy Jennings, Frederick County Tax Assessor David E. McClure, Architect O Norlh 1.oudoun Stl'CC1 P.O. lion 001 Winchcs(cr, VA 22001 Winchester. VA 22004 • SITE PLAN APPLICATION Complete the following application: DATE AIN, j 0, /9'1 L APPLICATION m CZ 1. Development 5,lgj-Ui l-,lc 1l 6 kT.,-ces 2. Location of Property: it:-M 2' Cd,C,C%E/� lzOAn� Sid% IldrE /3Z 2- (by street name) 4,2--4k --5 W aIP12k 51leP;t 1{4114 TDB &AA5,E 3. Property Owner: TW E 5,og4if,47.1d CJ 4A 4L 4 G;,Ed /aka 5 °O P, Address: iyaX LMEASr add Telephone: 4. Applicant/Agent: e4,Er ST, oolleA/ R, zzmI6 Address: 30-'3 S. �dyDadkl S7-12Et y all NChlEs � Q k11&i jt> q Telephone: 77-7 5. Designer: �/¢✓/l� F, /Yj�'��,�/�� /�/�/�/TF�� Address: Telephone: Ia —� 1.�- (p � 7 Contact: L iU F, 6. Is this an original or revised Site lan? Original Revised -5- 7. Total area of parcel to be developed: 4!, 3. Property Information: a) Property ID # : 54 -A - 3y F b) Current Zoning: --12- c) Present Use: J"Itl y-4 t10 d) Proposed Use: e) Adjoining Property Zoning: f) Adjoining Property Use: Ilk i7-T1"li'1 651C s g) Magisterial District: I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning Department. I also understand that all required material will be complete prior to the submis/�-' on r my site plan. signature: /lY /% Date: COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIR139IA DEPARTMENT OF (INSPECTIONS l Caller AP141r,.) H ►e-AIU Time Called Date Called Phone No. 6,(0z - 4'77171 Time Requested A5AtP Date Requested ArSl4 P Received By LVI� A. • ►I/yATl- ` Date of Inspection J� IZ3 PERMIT HOLDER NAME i' F Q CdNS--r-L)r1'10►3 RT. NO. L L��-�--Lot No. SEC. No. SUBDIVISION . (ILA-1Cy, - I N D . jam' K STREET NAME (-'ART' CC, re- fROkD DIRECTIONS ea4i i L.L Avc= T-c '3P KC,Z--- BUILDING NO. 340 �RN� TU2r•1 �L� QF(= �A�C�` PLUMBING NO. 4-A' G ot4TO F-f'• CoLu G P0A7 ' ELECTRICAL NO. SITE OrJ ( L-) �flr��X 2 MILL MECHANICAL NO. SIGN NO. DISTRICT D t`l-z Wt'•L_L PERMIT FOR: S5A,_yot-mot-i A2tj r 2A10 F_ NUJuS IN5:s Type of Inspection Residential Commercial _ Footers Setbacks: FR Slab Draintile Water Service Sewer Rough Electric Rough Plumbing Rough Mechanical l Groundworks v' Gas Piping/Test Other: Time In: i n 0 - Arl Temperature Time Out: (I^ '.7R As, Weather r i Results: Approved V Rejected Comments: BK L R __ Gas Fire -up Final Electrical Framing Final Mechanical Final ✓ Site Plan Final Building Fire Marshall Final Plumbing Special/Complaint Cut in No. Signature �.r�) �� Date COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VOINIA 40 DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS Caller Time Called I I ' GC) r+uK _ Date Called` Phone No. (c4,'7 3'75 .- Time Requested Artie Date Requested A, ;A-& Received By ► y.T;'- Date of Inspection ` 4 c 0 Co->S�E70I ) PERMIT HOLDER NAME RT. NO. ' � Lot No. SEC. No. SUBDIVISION STREET NAME EL(rT DIRECTIONS 1.3aTi2yyiu.ti- Adt 7'n r-1t«-� BUILDING NO. 1"U(LrJ L_ 1 or'. 3rtit�-�. ��t:—`- PLUMBING NO. r�1T0 �� *� L�_�u�►�-� rT� ELECTRICAL NO. AvfaaZA . �l7 MiL_ . MECHANICAL NO. SIGN NO. DISTRICT S-Tr-)L LoA'_ `— PERMIT FOR: Ytt-vt) tlnr_! TVDe of Inspection Residential Footers Slab Water Sewer Rough Plumbing _ Setbacks: FR Draintile Service Rough Electric Commercial BK Gas Fire -up Framing Final Rough Mechanical Final Building Groundworks Gas Piping/Test Final Plumbing L R Final Electrical Final Mechanical Site Plan Fire Marshall Special/Complaint Other: Time In: Temperature R or Cut in No. Time Out: I A"1 Weather '5UN Results: Approved Comments: L' Rejected Signature Date 4I 1 Z.' 9 �' COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIROIA is DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS Caller N � w GN5-r'Zu<-n0 JTime Called 3 00 Pm Date Called ThS Phone No. (o(r 7 - 375 2 Time Requested Date Requested 9 / ID 19 S Received By EVA-,', A. )i&6 rr— Date of Inspection F'10 /9S^ PERMIT HOLDER NAME H � V/ C003STeOC-770r� RT. NO. >G Lot No. SEC. No. SUBDIVISION E. Cu,Li _-x_ JK,, 0. STREET NAME Fnk'r Craw tr 1 � DIRECTIONS , d,u+�- Ay - ib Sp, yz.— t_BUILDING NO. 3ZG -44 TU e (J C) i- E 3A- e_E2,' PLUMBING NO. ELECTRICAL NO. MECHANICAL NO. SIGN NO DISTRICT z)-mil-4Cu A_t-1 PERMIT FOR: ,, -1rw nFr= IC - ti I -,j �s , L-rr" Type of Inspection Residential Commercial Footers Setbacks: FR Slab Draintile Water Service Sewer Rough Electric Rough Plumbing Rough Mechanical Groundworks Gas Piping/Test Other: Time In: ) = ' 7�j Temperature Time Out: 9 o51 Weather BK L Gas Fire -up Framing R Final Electrical Final Mechanical Final % Site Plan Final Building Final Plumbing Cut in No. Fire Marshall Special/Complaint Results: Approved TAP. e . 0 • Rejected Comments: n+►-JG ' G7°ti u-4Az Li,, t L+_ r+.'1�_7' Signature ��,� t� U , Date �1 t_-T I10 0 • COUNTY of FREDERICK i Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 August 14, 1992 Mr. David E. McClure, A.I.A. 606 Snyder Lane Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Review of Salvation Army Site Plan. Dear Dave: I have completed my preliminary review of the above referenced site plan. The overall concept of this plan appears to be fine; however, I have specific concerns with this development. Hopefully, these concerns can be addressed throughout the planning process. GENERAL COMMENTS The following information is required to insure conformance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance: ,/ 1) Address of owner/developer. 2) Certificate of designer. /3) Use of adjoining properties. V. Location and dimension of all required setbacks. 5) Proposed use of each building, structure, and area. �6) Ground floor area, total floor area, and FAR (Floor Area Ratio) calculations. 7) Location and dimension of all proposed signs. (ova;) A) Location and width of all easements. 9) Location of any environmental features. (ri fA) 10) Soil erosion and sediment control plan. THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 McClure Letter August 14, 1992 Page -2- 11) The proposed dumpster pad needs to be enclosed by a solid wooden fence. SPECIFIC CONCERNS * All sections referenced in this letter are found in Chapter 21, Zoning Ordinance adopted February 14, 1990, as amended, of the Frederick County Code PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS 1) The proposed parking lot layout is located five feet off of Fort Collier Road. This could present a problem should this road be widened in the future. ,/2) The five foot setback for this parking lot will make it almost impossible to achieve the perimeter parking lot landscaping requirements (section 3-3-2.11.1). Sufficient growing area and safety issues regarding encroachment onto VDOT's right-of-way will be a problem. ✓3) The area designated as "future parking" will have to be designed to comply with the parking lot requirements specified in section 3-3-2. Section 3-3-2.3 requires curb and gutter to be installed around the perimeter of all parking lots with B-2 zoning. The proposed parking lot does not meet this requirement, nor does the future parking lot. I discussed this issue with the Frederick County Fire Marshal, as this has an impact on the proposed fire lane. If the "future parking" will be constructed, we will permit curb cuts on each side of the fire lane to allow access. Bollards supporting a chain will have to be placed in this area if this occurs. When the future parking lot is constructed, the curb and gutter may replace the bollards, and new bollards may be installed at the end on the area designated as "future parking". 4) The required amount of parking has yet to be determined. During our preliminary meeting, I stated that the required parking spaces would be the sum of the spaces required for the various uses (section 3-3-1.1.2). You asked if there was any relief from this requirement. I stated that section 3-3-1.1 provides for the Zoning Administrator to allow some variation in required parking if the applicant can prove that similar cases have actually required less parking. On August 13, 1992, I received a letter from Stephen M. Long, Captain. This letter, dated August 7, 1992 states that 1] 0 McClure Letter August 14, 1992 Page -3- "Through extensive program evaluation and projected needs for the future, we have designed into our project a total of fifty-five parking spaces. Again, this will more than serve our needs." In order for our department to reduce required parking, it is important that we receive the detailed study for our review. BUFFER AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS 1) The proposed development adjoins property zoned RP (Residential Performance). The proposed site plan indicates that one building will be within 105 feet of the RP property boundary line. Section 3-12-4.2 requires a landscaped screen along the RP property boundary line. A detailed buffer needs to be included on this site plan for review. 2) The proposed development indicates a future addition to the above mentioned building. This addition would create a building that is 50 feet from the RP property boundary line. If this occurs, the buffer category will be upgraded to require full screening along the RP property boundary line. 3) You asked if the existing tree line would serve as a landscaped screen. Section 3-12- 2.2 allows for a woodland strip of 50 feet to serve as a full screen. I will be happy to meet with you on site to discuss existing site conditions. Frederick County prefers to leave existing tree lines intact if possible and would be willing to consider options if the intent of the Zoning Ordinance can be met. I hope this letter is beneficial to your work. It is important to address the parking lot and buffering concerns at this stage of the planning process. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter or if you would like to schedule an on -site meeting. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW • APPLICANT'S CHECKLIST Your site plan should include the following: Administrative Information ! W] 1. Name of proposed development 2 Name and address of owner 3 Name and address of developer Name, address, and phone number of designer Certificate of surveyor, engineer, or architect V _ Date plan prepared and date of revisions 7. A listing of all conditions placed on the site as a result of a conditional use permit or conditional zoning approval _ .8. A space labeled "approved by the Zoning Administrator" for the approval signature and date of approval General Site Information Y N 9. Location map (scale 1:2000) = 10. Magisterial District of site 11. Scale of site plan (not to exceed 1:50) 12. North Arrow 6 Zoning of site Use and zoning of adjoining properties Lots Uses Buildincrs & Structures Y N 15. Surveyed boundaries for all lots and parcels _ 16. Acreage of all lots included in the plan _✓ 17 The location and dimensions of all required setbacks and yard areas Location of all buildings, structures, and uses 1 The proposed use of each building, structure, and _ � area 20. The location and type of all dwelling units 21 Ground floor area and total floor area of all buildings With FAR calculations for commercial and industrial zoning districts _ 22. The height of all buildings and structures e3 The location and dimension of all signs 7 r 1 i Lots/Uses/Buildings & Structures (con't) Y N 24. Location of outdoor lighting fixtures _ 25. Location and nature of outdoor storage areas _ _Z 26. Location and area of common open space 27. Location and description of all recreation facilities _ 28. Location of sidewalks and pedestrian ways __vl _ 29. Location of outdoor trash receptacles Roads Y N 30. Name and number of existing and planned streets on and adjoining the site 31. Location of existing and planned streets on and adjoining the site 32. Dimensions, boundaries, width, pavement, and construction of planned roads 33. Location and dimensions of all proposed entrances from public right-of-ways Utilities Y N 34. Location of all utilities, including sewer and water lines with the size of lines, mains, and laterals 35 Location and width of all easements, including access, utility and drainage easements 36. Location and nature o ire lanes, ire hydrants, and all other facilities necessary to meet the Fire Code requirements Parking Y N 37 Calculations describing the required number of j parking and loading spaces 38. Location and dimensions of all parking and loading spaces, driveways, parking aisles, curbing, and other features to be used 39. Location and dimension of all handicapped spaces EJ l0 Natural Features Y N _ Existing and finished contour lines 41 Location of steep slopes, woodlands, floodplains, wetlands, sinkholes, and other environmental features 42 Location of streams and drainage ways Landscaping Y N 43 Landscaping plan describing location and types of plants to be used �/ 44 Location of required buffers and screening with cross sections or profiles Erosion and Sediment Control Y N 45. A stormwater management plan with run off calculations and location and description of facilities to be used 46 Soil erosion and sedimentation control plan with location, types, and examples of provisions to be used ___ 0 0 EVA BURROWS • KENNETH L. HODDER V Mfr • GENERAL 11r TERRITORIAL COMMANDER Armu LT -COLONEL WARREN H. FULTON FOUNDED IN 1865 BY WILLIAM BOOTH TELEPHONE DIVISIONAL COMMANDER NATIONAL CAPITAL AND VIRGINIA DIVISION 202-783-9085 503 "E" STREET, N.W. 20001 FAX 202-347-4070 MAIL: P.O. BOX 2166 20013 WASHINGTON, D.C. December 10, 1992 Captain Steve Long COMMANDING OFFICER Winchester, Virginia RE: Parking Variance Information Dear Captain Long: Please find attached parking variance information from the Prince Georges Corps in Hyattsville, Maryland that you requested. God bless you. BT/mr attachment 0 Sincerely, Ca t iL. Tanner P DIVISIONAL SECRETARY DEC i eMt V > : ER THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Gr�V�`(��IENT k.Office of the Clerk of the Council (301) 952-3600 RE: SE-4037 (The Salvation Army) NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL Pursuant to the provisions of Section 27-134 of the Zoning Ordinance of Prince George's County, Maryland, requiring notice of decision of the District Council, you will find enclosed herewith a copy of the Council Order setting forth the action taken by the District Council in your case on November 9, 1992 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on November 13, 1992 , this notice and attached Council Order were mailed, postage prepaid, to all persons of record. 0 (12/91) j c t. sweeney cting Clerk of tfie Council 0 County Administration Building --Upper Marlboro, MarkJand 207 / 2 Case No.: S.E. 4037 Applicant: The Salvation Army COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 52 - 1992 AN ORDINANCE to approve a special exception and variances. WHEREAS, an application has been filed for property described as approximately 1.9 acres of land, in the R-55 Zone, identified as 4825 Edmonston Road, described as Lots 5-12, Block A, Evers subdivision #0268 and Lots 6 & 7, Block A, Whitely subdivision #0275, located in the southeast quardrant of the intersection of• Edmonston Road and Decatur Street, Hyattsville, for approval of a special exception for an ELEEMONSYNARY INSTITUTION AND DAY CARE CENTER FOR CHILDREN and VARIANCES from the provisions of Sections 27-364(a)(2), 27-421, 27-442(c) and 27-442(e); and WHEREAS, the application was advertised, the property posted prior to public hearing and all adjoining property owners were notified of the hearing for variance requests, in accordance with all requirements of law;` and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Technical Staff, who has filed recommendations with the District Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the application and variance requests was held before the Zoning Hearing Examiner; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Hearing Examiner's recommendations were duly filed with and considered by the District Council; and WHEREAS, having reviewed the record, the District Council has determined that the application for special exception and variance • 0 SE 4037 Page 2 requests should be approved; and WHEREAS, to protect adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood, this special exception and variance requests are granted subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, as the basis for this action, the District Council adopts the recommendations of the Zoning Hearing Examiner as its findings and conclusions in this case. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED: Section 1. The Zoning Map of the Maryland -Washington Regional District in Prince George's County, Maryland, is hereby amended to show an approved special exception for an ELEEMOSYNARY INSTITUTION, DAY CARE CENTER FOR CHILDREN and VARIANCES from the provisions of Sections 27-364(a)(2), 27-421, 27-442(c) and 27-442(e) on the property which is the subject of Application No. S.E. 4037. All development and use of the subject property under this special exception shall conform to the site plan as revised in accordance with Condition No. 17 below. Section 2. The special exception and alternative compliance AC-90149, approved herein, is subject to the following conditions: 1. Seventy-five students maximum are approved for the day care center for children. 2. Parking on the site plan be correctly calculated, considering the DPLS, parking required and parking provided. 3. Any gate opening from the Decatur Street play area be configured or have a latch provided in height or outside to prevent small children from being able to open it to exit from the play area themselves. 4.. A note shall be placed on the site plan stating: The 1,476 square foot courtyard may,have no more'than 20 children playing on it at any one time and the 2,566 square foot Decatur Street play area may have no more than 34 children playing on it at any one time. SE 4037 Page 3 5. The location of all dwellings on adjoining lots shall be shown on the site plan. 6. The height and building materials of the proposed retaining wall in the east yard shall be shown on the site plan. 7. Single handicapped parking spaces shall measure at least 19' x 13'. 8. A central ramp shall be shown for the two handicapped parking spaces south of the building. 9. The Departure from Parking and Loading Standards (DPLS-•129) and the Alternative Compliance (AC-90149) provi- sions as approved herein shall be indicated by note on the site and landscape plan -as well as being shown thereon as approved. 10. Adequate, demur lighting that shall not shine or glare off site shall be shown for the parking area. 11. A note shall be placed on the site plan indicating that the play area along Decatur Street shall not be used after dark. The courtyard play area shall be adequately lighted whether used after dark or not for day care play area. 12. The play area fence along Decatur Street shall be 6 feet tall, board -on -board and located five feet behind the street line with shrubs on the outside and 6 shade trees (not ornamental trees) on the inside. 13. At the time of permit issuance, if the applicant has not acquired title -to the adjoining property, described as Block A, Lots 1-5, and currently in the C-0 Zone, a six foot tall, board -on -board fence shall be provided along the southwest property line (exclusive of driveway and sidewalk connec- tions). The fence- shall be shown on the site plan with an appropriate.note stating this alternative requirement. 14. The two most northern ornamental trees along Edmonston Road shall be changed to shade trees and the three Bradford pear trees located on the southwest side of the steps along Edmonston Road shall be changed to shade trees. 15. Plant schedules on the landscape plan shall be corrected, listing botanical and common name, in accordance with the Landscape Manual. 16. Typical play equipment for the day care center outside play areas shall be shown on thq site plan. The M-NCPPC Urban Design Section shall approve the final type, amount and location of the play equipment. SE 4037 Page 4 17. Applicant shall file amended site and landscape plans for approval of the Office of Zoning Hearing Examiner that comply with this decision and the Zoning Ordinance prior to any permits being issued pursuant to this special exception. The following variances are approved from the stated Sections and shall be noted on the amended site plan: 1. Section 27-364(a)2(c); 25 foot building setback; a variance of: a. Eight feet for the building from Edmonston Road, b. Nine feet for the building from Decatur Street, C. Eight feet for the proposed retaining wall from the east -property line, d. Eighteen feet for the existing retaining wall from the east property line, e. Twenty feet for the six foot board -on -board fence from the Decatur Street property line, f. Twenty feet for the six foot board -on -board fence conditionally required five feet from the south property line, and g. Twenty-five feet for the optional retaining walls along Edmonston Road. 2. Section 27-421; 25 foot triangular corner lot setback: A variance of 5 feet is needed because structures encroach in the area enscribed. 3. Section 27-442(c); 60% maximum allowed net lot coverage; applicant has 75%: A variance of 15% is required. 4. Section '27-442(4�_); Minimum depth/width in feet for yards; a variance of: a. Ten feet for the front (Edmonston Road) yard, b. Nine feet for the Decatur Street yard, C. Twenty feet for the southwest yard, d. Thirteen feet for the existing wall in the rear yard, and e. Seven feet for the proposed wall in the rear yard. SE 4037 Page 5 Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its enactment. Enacted this 9th day of November 1992, by the following vote: In Favor: Council Members Castaldi, Bell, Casula, Del Giudice, Fletcher, Mills and Pemberton Opposed: Abstained: Absent: Council Members MacKinnon and Wineland Vote: ATTEST: 7-0 J yqb T/ Sweeney �LtAng Clerk of Council COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THAT PART OF THE MARYLAND-WASHINGTON REGIONAL DISTRICT IN PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND rman CENTEROFHoPE For Winchester, Frederick And Clarke Counties Challenge Goal—$1,206,129 August 7, 1992 AD Mr. Evan Wyatt Department Of Planning County Of Frederick Winchester, VA. 22601 & Development RE: PARKING NEEDS FOR THE SALVATION ARMY CENTER OF HOPE Dear Mr. Wyatt, I understand that our Architect, Dave McCkure has initiated contact with your office concerning parking requirements for our new Center Of Hope project located in Fort Collier park. Through extensive program evaluation and projected needs for the future, we have designed into our project a total of fifty-five parking spaces. Again, this will more than serve our needs. We are aware of the county's parking requirements and hope this will be acceptable due to the unique nature of our institution. Our residents in the Transitional Housing program normally are without personal transportation. And while we do have a regular Church program, we pick up about thirty-five percent of our members by bus or van. As you can see from the attached "Site Plan", we do have additional parking planned as our program expands into the next century. Your helpful consideration is much appreciated. Thank you and may God bless you. In His Service, SS / X �_-aptepa/n M. /ong, n eOMMANDING�FFICER copy: Dave McClure `' , The Salvation Army Center of Hope Campaign . 0o Unit;ed VVag P.O. Box 154, Winchester, VA 22601 • 703-722-4183 Captain Stephen Long COMMANDING OFFICER Ed Daley ADVISORY BOARD CHAIR J.D. Berlin STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIR STEERING COMMITTEE Joseph Allen Frank Armstrong Vergil Bates Thomas Byrd John Capehart Betty Carroll Irvine Cather, Jr. William Clement Thomas Coffman Don Collins Bill Cowden Larry Duncan Arthur Dunlap, Jr. Ben B. Dutton, Jr. Bob Edwards Jim Ellington Lewis Ewing Wilbur Feltner Michael Foreman David Goff Marvin Gore Carolyn Griffin Sharen Gromling Tom Gromling Elizabeth Helm Charles Johnston Donald Jones Skeeter Knee Lou Lacy Howard Lewis Ron Miller Lori Molden Kathy Nerangis Tom Nida Dallas Norris Peter O'Coin James Olsen Lary Omps Harold Patton Kathryn Perry Charles Pine, Jr. Russ Potts H. Delmer Robinson, Jr. George Romine John Schroth John Scully, IV Lackey Sempeles George L. Sheppard, Jr. Ralph Shockey Kathy Smart Harrington Smith Ken Smith John Solenberger John Tyson William Way Gary Yasso 9 01 SPA OZO-9� b4 C01MI ION"LVE'°1L°IH of vIRCiINTA DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIG"FH Mr. Dave McClure, A.I.A. 606 Snyder Lame Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Dave: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD'/ALLEY PIKE PO Box 278 EDINBURG,22824 0278 November 29, 1994 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (703) 984-5600 FAX (703) 984-5607 Ref: The Salvation Army Route 1322 Frederick County I have received a copy of letter from Mr. P. Duane Brown and plat detailing a drainage easement on the referenced property. Please ensure the owner understands the easement will need to be conveyed to the County of Frederick and not the Virginia Department of Transportation. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer �-4'z j /� 4,1z, By: Robert B. Childress Trans. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor RBC/rf xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder Mr. P. Duane Brown Mr. Dave Holliday f TRANSPORTAI10% = .F3 THE 21 ST CENTURY RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of V1RQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 September 8, 1994 Mr. Martin R. Hodgson, V.P. H & W Construction Company, Inc. P. O. Box 2468 Winchester, VA 22604 Dear Ronnie: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIOENT ENGINEER TELE(703)964-5600 FAX (703) 994-5607 Ref: The Salvation Army Route 1322 Frederick County Enclosed is your approved Land Use Permit #855-02681 to cover the construction and maintenance of two (2) commercial entrances to the referenced facility. Please note we have made a minor revision to the approved permit plan. The entrance culverts will need to have their ends mitered for safety reasons. Please ensure a copy of the approved permit assembly is kept at the job site whenever working within the Route 1322 right-of-way. I would also like to remind you of the need to erect and maintain proper traffic control in accordance with our Virginia Work Area Protection Manual. Please give Mr. S. A. Melnikoff a call at (703) 722-3460 at least 48 hours in advance of the start of construction to arrange for any necessary inspections. If you have any questions concerning the permit requirements or during construction, please give me a call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer (; .� 16. � By: Robert B. Childress Trans. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor RBC/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. Steve A. Melnikoff (w/ copy of plan) Mr. Robert W. Watkins r� TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CE%TURY r � _ � Z ti1•h0. TAN' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(703)984-4133 August 13, 1993 FAX (703) 984-9761 Mr. David E. McClure, A.I.A. Ref: Proposed Commercial Entrances 606 Snyder Lane The Salvation Army Winchester, VA 22601 Route 1322 Frederick County Dear Mr. McClure: We are in receipt of the referenced project's revised site plans dated August 11, 1993. It appears all of our earlier recommendations have been satisfactorily addressed. Please advise the owner of our approval and that the appropriate land use permits may now be applied for to cover work within the State's right of way. Said permits will require a processing fee and surety bond coverage. Permits of this nature normally takes approximately thirty days to process and issue once satisfactory application has been made. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY L-1 C REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce St. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: i RAC H-E 71)h, -72 2 -U - C-7 Name of development and/or description of 2id"' ecTuesti+ l� 14 1992 Location: t_� JHC o wt.; ❑ KDw n KSH ❑ KDC G RLF Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from W. H. Bushman to Mr. David E. McClure dated August 13, 1993. VDOT Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER*PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPLfCA14T. ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach three copies of your plans and/or application form. -Four -10- tyhy -J COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER COMMISSIONER August 4, 1993 TELE (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Mr. David E. McClure, A.I.A. Ref: Proposed Commercial Entrances 606 Snyder Lane The Salvation Army Winchester, VA 22601 Route 1322 Frederick County Dear Mr. McClure: As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced site plan dated June 23, 1993. Our recommendations may be found on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows: 1. The entrance pipe should be extended to the ends of the curb radii and erosion control stone added at their inverts. 2. A drop inlet and pipe stub is needed as shown unless details of the future parking lot are shown that indicate drainage will not be carried out through the southern entrance. 3. Standard EC-1 Erosion Stone should be added at the ends of the paved flumes as shown. 4. The note concerning ditch linings should be clarified. Please revise and resubmit six (6) copies for final approval. Should any changes be deemed necessary, please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. Should you have any questions, please let me know. RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. T. L. Jackson Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. H. E. Strawsnyder Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer Qj 'i Ca. By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER Mr. David E. McClure, AIA 606 Snyder Lane Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. McClure: COTA ON11VEALTH of VIRC.INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHiAAN RESIDENT ENGiNEER February 17, 1993 TELE (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Proposed Commercial Entrances The Salvation Army Route 1322 Frederick County Ref: As requested we have reviewed the above referenced site plan dated November 12, 1992. Our recommendations may be found on the enclosed plans marked in red and as follows: 1. Proposed modifications to the west side ditch of Route 1322 are unacceptable. The proposed ditch is too deep and too close to the roadway. A minimum 4' shoulder and 3:1 ditch slope is to be provided. We suggest a culvert be installed under the parking lot to eliminate the deep ditch at the north end of the property. Double lines of smaller pipe or arch pipe under the entrances may be more desirable to reduce the ditch depths. Drainage calculations should be submitted covering all ditch and culvert flows. A profile of the entire existing and proposed ditch system should be shown. Analysis of the existing downstream ditch all the way to the detention basin should also be included. 2. Why does the plan and profile of Culvert No. 2 show it to flow north? 3. Discharging most of the parking lot flow down the concrete flume (an 8' drop) is unacceptable. The flow should be collected in a drop inlet and piped into Culvert No. 1. 4. Only small amounts of sheet flow are normally allowed to flow out of an entrance. If the future parking lot to the southeast will be graded as shown, a drop inlet is needed at the east entrance to intercept the flow and pipe it to the side ditch. 5. Culverts should be either asphalt coated or concrete. Storm sewer should be concrete. 6. The entrance dimensions and pavement design appear adequate. 7. Vegetation on the inside of the curb adjacent to the north entrance may have to be removed to obtain a minimum 350' of sight distance. Please revise and resubmit four (4) copies for further review. Should any changes be deemed necessary please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Robert W. Watkins TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 0 E COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER COMMISSIONER September 16, 1992 TELE (703) 984-4133 FAX (703) 984-9761 Mr. Dave E. McClure, A.I.A. Ref: Proposed Commercial Entrances 606 Snyder Lane The Salvation Army Winchester, VA 22601 Route 1322 Frederick County Dear Mr. McClure: We have completed a preliminary review of the referenced site plan dated July 24, 1992. Overall your proposal appears workable. However, the following list of items as well as those marked in red on the enclosed plans will need to be addressed before we may continue our review. 1. The entrance centerlines will need to be properly staked and so indicated so we may check available sight distances. 2. The proposed entrances should be redesigned to the dimensions noted. Also, a half typical section needs to be incorporated into the plans which details a pavement design of 8" C.R. Type 21-B Base Aegregate, 3" Type BM-2 Asphalt Concrete and 1.5" Type SM-2A Asphalt Concrete. 3. Drainage calculations will need to be provided to support the size of the proposed entrance culverts. Also, if these pipe are installed outside of the right-of-way a drainage easement will be required to enclose them. 4. Additional detail will be required on the utilities shown within the Route 1322 right-of-way. 5. A drainage easement will need to be provided across the east end of the property as noted. You should refer to the approved Hampton Chase Subdivision plans prepared by G. W. Clifford & Associates to determine the exact location. Once the above items have been addressed, please resubmit three (3) copies for further review. Should any changes be deemed necessary please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. Should you have any questions, please let me know. F7 ChfSFP Sincerely, r� l992 W. H. Bushman, Trans. Res. Engr. Lto" � r� By: R. B. Childress, Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Robert W. Watkins TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY • ,� JAL141 F � �Lj ti{ 6 ,-r TO �_ vw)�_S REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMFNTS Frederick County Sanitation Authority I Ur !-P-=L=---- Attn: Engineer Director I P.O. Box 618 AUS I' Winchester, Virginia 22601 r 'ram j (703) 665-5690 �U,- _ J ; I .• The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the 2nd floor of the old Frederick Co. Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: 0121//0 . AL 61c'-4ZXe 4,ee/�/rtc7- 1004 5141VOs e AZ;/t/8 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: It? 4r �D14/E/L 9 Z14 L9 SrA Tr )Piftj22, SUE/,3�2 7_116 /LWI(/f iofS re ,e t/ cVMW5/1OA Sanitation Authority Comments: /57 i9/ W - .2 5' /TEiit S - ,E C7RR FC r �9,EY�i,3-jr �T ,2ND RAf V/,Ew• /, irf,*! • g ORREcr 1� 4 A61444 Y~A c «,d v•or oAXN Arr. r"A Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION AUTHORITY * RN THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) 4U,9*17, F.Z. NOTICE TO APPLICANT Aviv /�' It is your responsibility to complete this for � �.u� ely as possible in order to assist the agency with' Also, please attach two copies of your plans and/or application form. -11- Frederick County Sanitation Othority Post Office Box 618 _ __ WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 Phone 665-5690 MCI V TO V1,0 11f 4!rDl S4Y44F1? 44Ve WE ARE SENDING YOU Fl Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Prints ❑ Change order ILCE,T,T* Off mun. olrruQL DATE JOAFC JOB NO. ATTENTION V L A� RE'. gee 7w-/O y ! I /► FTO'Plans ❑ Samples the following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ Approved as submitted VApproved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 3Aqo� 0 YAO 4S-/0 72V — 3 17-,C/s� - / U'144 *664 4 Cody O� TXE F60AO,6D WA7,S14 Aoy,d SF w.FiQ �•siS.4 �1,EiyTS BE�.q,E �9fCF-�S/a�L-' T6 W4 7, i, 4 W E7XciQ. COPY TO s%E/�1WY L G*Z"' - V�'1V 4" VVI"V C#-'-TrF4,S I G N ED: 75z��Jr PRODUCT240 Inc., Croton, Mass. 0101. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly ?t us at once. • REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS FCSA Frederick County Sanitation Authority OF�n(1 n1, Attn: Engineer Director P.O. sox 618 AUG 13 1992 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Tits (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the 2nd floor of the old Frederick Co. Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: /0gl."1Z r1c, ,C,0 We"1141W.5iI A Sanitation Authority Comments: /57 RFY/Fw - -25' - Z oiQ� A=- Cr 4- �G,�17,- Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION AUTHORITY * RN THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) 4V S'/7 $:Z NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach two copies of your plans and/or application form. -11- REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department Attn: Building Official P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5650 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: l7r��"iI� tile' e,L L14E ^Glv -541X,016=)c J-4jtlA Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: Inspection Department Comments: Section 313, Use Group (Mixed Use and Occupancy) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 28 Code of Federal Regulation Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. Handicap parking spaces and numbers are in compliance with ADA regulations. Code Administrator Signature & Date: -l�^/� (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS DEPT.*PLEASE URN THIS FORM TO APPVCANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 10 -14- C 1 /o 1-4 " , 77 41� . OUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINJ�� FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE - LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 0813920653 Date Received 081392 Date Reviewed 092992 Applicant Name David E. McClure Address 606 Snyder Lane ... ��..........._�� Winchester, VA 22601 ................ Project Name Salvation Army ................. _.... __--------- _------ ____________________________........... ________........... Phone No. 703-722-6887 Type of Application Site Plan Current Zoning M-1 1st Due Fire Co. 13 1st Due Rescue Co. 3 -------- ------ Election District Stonewall RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System X Residential Sprinkler System �� Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Fire Lanes Required; Yes X No .`��.` Comments: Posted fire lanes required at all hydrant locations and any F.D. siamese connections. Roadway/Aisleway Widths; Adequate X Inadequate Special Hazards Noted; Yes _ Comments: Not Identified No X th is Hydrant Locations; Adequate x inadequate Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified Not Identified x Additional Comments: 1. The burning of ld1'ld clearing debris require a permit j'roif} the Fire Marshal's Office. G. Burning of construction debris on site is , permitted. 3. Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained at all tulles during '--C+nat1'-l.ictI{,n. 4. Post temporary street address signs when building or site work begins. _.._..... ......... _ _ _.._..__._ _.. _.._._�-.___.__...__ �_...._..�_.._._._____..-......__.........._....._._..............._...............__...._..___._._--.._. »..s� .__..................... A".'S�W "=L�[ f=RE L� r-1 I-_ ...... ......... ........................ Review Time .50 hr. Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal 0 klc v-t ozo-yz i COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & Inspections 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor 703/665-5643 January 25, 1993 Mr. David E. McClure, A.I.A. 606 Snyder Lane Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Salvation Army Fort Collier Industrial Park Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. McClure: We have completed our review of the final submittal of the site plans (revision December 11, 1992) for the new Salvation Army. Based on this review, the site plans including the stormwater management and erosion and sediment control plans are approved for construction. Sincerely, Harvey E.I trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES:rls cc: Evan Wyatt, Zoning and Planning file Fax: 703/678-0682 - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22604 FREDERICK COUNTY ENGINEER 9 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET, 2ND FLOOR WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-5643 SITE PLAN REVISION DATE: December 9, 1992 PROJECT: Salvation Army Fort Collier Industrial Park Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia DESIGNER: David E. McClure, Architect 606 Snyder Lane Winchester, Virginia 22601 COMMENTS Sheet SP-1• a. Correct the invert elevations for culvert #2. These corrections shall also be reflected on the profile sheet. b. Indicate the appropriate invert elevations at the manhole locations associated with the proposed sewer line. These elevations are indicated on the profile sheet. Ha vey Strawsnyder, Vr.,A E. Directc of Engineering and Inspectns ' gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493 October 30 ,1992 Mr. Dave McClure 606 Snyder Lane Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Salvation Army Site Plan Dear Dave, I am attaching a set of plans for the Salvation Army site that has been redmarked with our comments on water, sewer and storm improvements. The details which you required are also provided. On the storm water management pond, our calculations show that the site C factor will not exceed .75 and the T(c) remains below 15 minutes as long as the area between the S.A. building and the D.P. remains in open space. I have attached our analysis of the pavement with regards to the CBR value of 1.0. The VDOT approved Vswani method was used. We recommend an 8" 21A base and 2" SM-2A surface course. Of course this section should be placed on a well compacted subgrade. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Regards, Ron Mislowsky, P.E. RAM / kf Encl. 1�6 44 r SALVATION ARMY PAVEMENT DESIGN CBR = 1.0 Design CBR = 2/3 x 1.0 =.67 RF = 2.0 per Vswani Figure � 1 SSV = Des.CBR x RF = .67 x 2.0 1.33 VPD = 200 (considered conservative) Thickness index = 9.5 per Vswani Figure 04 D = aihi + a2h2 Try 2" S-5 8" 21 A D= 2 x 1,67 + 8 x 1.0 per Vswani Table 2 = 3.34 + 8 1 1.34 > 9.5 e � u aA-J • FREDERICK COUNTY ENGINEER 9 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET, 2ND FLOOR WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-5643 SITE PLAN DATE: September 8, 1992 PROJECT: Salvation Army Fort Collier Industrial Park Frederick County, Virginia DESIGNER: David E. McClure, Architect 606 Snyder Lane Winchester, Virginia 22601 COMMENTS 1. Sheet SP-1 a. Provide sewer profile. b. Complete grading contours in the southwest corner of the site. c. Provide hydraulic calculations to verify use of 15" CMP under entrance drives. Also, indicate invert elevations at each location. d. Justify pavement thickness proposed for parking areas and entrance drives. This section appears to be inadequate for trash trucks especially if excessive turning is involved. e. It is suggested that the concrete pavement in front of the dumpster be extended to accommodate backup and turning area for heavy trash trucks. 2. Sheet SP-2 a. Correct the grading to reflect the changes recommended by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. (see attached marked -up drawing). 9 • SALVATION ARMY SITE PLAN COMMENTS PAGE TWO SEPTEMBER 8, 1992 b. Indicate the stormwater detention constraints outlined in the attached letter from G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Also, confirm that the modified "C: factor is less than 0.75 for the proposed development and that the time of concentration to the Hampton Chase structure is not decreased below 15 minutes. 3. Sheet SP-3 a. Provide details indicating proper installation of straw bales and silt fence. b. Provide temporary construction entrance detail. 4. Specifications a. The proposed grading plans indicate maximum cuts and fills on the order of 4.5' and 5.51, respectively, within the proposed building areas. Provide specifications related to the placement of compacted fill within these areas. These specifications should be a part of the initial site development package. b. Compaction testing will be required within five (5) feet of all building structures. Harvey E..jStrawsnyder, Jr.;P.E. � Director of Engineering and Inspections 0 0 gilbert zv. clifford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street e Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 • Fax: 703-665-0493 Frederick County Engineering Mr. Harvey E. Strawsnyder, P.E. Nine N. Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Ed, August 31, 1992 Department Re: Salvation Army Site Plan Chuck's comments are provided on the enclosed plait. The Hampton Chase detention pond is sized to handle the runoff from approximately 60 acres of drainage area. Included in this inflow is the area which lies between Hampton Chase and Ft. Collier Road, 22.4 acres in all. The pond design accounts for further development in this area of approximately 7 acres to a C value of .75 with a time of concentration from the limits of the 22 acre area to Structure 34 of 15 minutes. The Salvation Army site appears to contain approximately 4.5 acres with at least a .75 C value. The site boundaries are not shown, however. The intended use of the adjoining land to the southeast is not shown. If more than 2.4 acres of this area is to be developed inthe future, additional arrangements to the existing pond need be made. You may want to confirm that the Salvation Army site C factor is less than .75 and that the time of concentration to Hampton Chase Structure 34 is not increased below 15 minutes. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, (Pn islowsky, P.E. RAM/cls I .f 9 • Report of Geotechnical Investigation PLANNED SALVATION ARMY BUILDINGS Winchester, Virginia Triad Project No. G-734 Submitted To Captain Stephen M. Long, Commanding Officer The Salvation Army, Winchester Office 303 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared By Triad Engineering, Inc. 2050 Garber Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 September 23, 1992 1 f- 2050 Garber Road Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 703-667-9300 FAX 703-667-2260 September 23, 1992 Captain Stephen M. Long, Commanding Officer The Salvation Army, Winchester Office 303 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Planned Salvation Army�Buildings Winchester, Virginia Triad Project No. G-734 Dear Captain Long: We are pleased to present our evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the site planned for the Salvation Army buildings in Winchester, Virginia. The work was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated August 4, 1992. The report contains the results of our field exploration and laboratory tests, and presents our recommendations for design and construction of the geotechnical elements of the project. A summary of our primary concerns and considerations for design and construction are listed below. The recommendations presented in the following paragraphs should not be implemented prior to reading this entire report. Details of the investigation and our final recommendations are included in subsequent sections of this report. Field Exploration ** Our field exploration indicated that the project site is underlain by residual soils and their parent limestone bedrock. The residual soils are generally composed of brown silty clays with various amounts of weathered rock fragments with increased depth. ** All borings and probes encountered auger refusal on hard rock at approximate depths ranging from 2.5 to 9.0 feet below existing grades. ** A groundwater level was not present upon completion of test borings. Based on the proposed floor levels, we do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during construction. Morgantown • St. Albans West Virginia Triad Engineering, Inc. Winchester • Harrisonburg Virginia • 0 The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 2 Earthworks ** On site residual soils obtained from the required excavations are generally suitable for use as fill material provided that compaction criteria are strictly maintained. The results of the laboratory moisture content tests on representative limestone residual soils indicate that these materials may have to be dried by as, much as 5 to 10 percent by weight to attain a satisfactory moisture content that is within two (2) percent of the optimum moisture content based on the Standard Proctor method (ASTM D 698). ** An irregular top of rock profile is common within the carbonate rock geologic formation at the site and hard rock may be encountered at higher levels than those encountered in the borings and probes. We anticipate that bedrock will be encountered during construction. Blasting will likely be required to achieve final subgrades in areas where competent bedrock is encountered. "Shot" rock from blasting operations can generally be used as fill in select non-structural areas as discussed in detail in the CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS section of this report. Substructure and Pavement Subgrade ** Foundations for building structures should be designed as shallow spread footing foundations bearing on approved residual soils and/or controlled, compacted fill. Where hard rock is encountered, minimal undercuts may be required for shallow foundations. For details of maximum allowable bearing pressures, settlements, and minimum dimensions for foundations, see the Foundations section of this report. ** Floor slabs can be constructed as slabs -on -grade bearing on approved residual soils and/or controlled, compacted fill. Where hard rock is encountered at the slab subgrade, minimal undercuts may be required. For details of a subgrade modulus design value and recommended components and construction of floor slabs, see the Floor Slabs section of this report. ** Based on the results of our California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test, we recommend that a CBR value of 1.0 percent be used for pavement design. For details of the recommended subgrade criteria for pavement design, see the enclosed report. The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 3 A. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated August 4, 1992 and subsequently executed on August 25, 1992. Our field exploration included drilling 4 test borings with Standard Penetration Testing and 3 auger probes. Laboratory soil tests, performed in accordance with appropriate ASTM and VTM testing procedures, were conducted to supplement the field exploration. Preparation of this geotechnical report completes our scope of services and includes the following: 1) A detailed discussion of the site geology and subsurface conditions encountered. 2) Detailed boring and probe logs with a Boring and Probe Location Plan. 3) Foundation recommendations with specific references to bearing capacities and settlement potential. 4) Recommended subgrade criteria for pavement design. 5) Site preparation and structural fill requirements. 6) Foundation installation procedures. 7) Construction recommendations as they relate to the geotechnical aspects of the project. Our scope of services did not include surveying, structural design, preparation of plans and specifications, development of quantity and cost estimates, or inspection and testing services. B. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located along the south side of Fort Collier Road; west of the intersection of Fort Collier Road and Baker Lane in Winchester, Virginia. A Site Location Plan is included as Plate A-1 in Appendix "A". The site generally consists of gently sloping land covered with grass and sparse trees along the western property line. Some rock outcrops were also observed in the central portion of the site. The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 4 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CRITERIA C.1. Project Site Plan A site plan, dated July 24, 1992, was provided to us by David E. McClure, A.I.A., architect for the project. A partial copy of the topographic map with the building footprint is included as Plate A-2 and it shows the approximate location of each test boring and auger probe. C.2. Proposed Project We understand that the project includes construction of two (2) single story structures with floor space on the order of 9,225 square feet and 7,511 square feet. The buildings will consist of masonry bearing walls with continuous footings that will support the entire roof truss system and concrete slabs supported at grade. - At this time, we are not aware of any below grade walls or exterior retaining walls as part of the construction. C.3. Existing and Proposed Elevations We understand that a finished floor elevation of 702.5 has been established for both buildings. Based on our review of the provided site plan, the topography at the site ranges from approximately elevation 712 to 694. Therefore, we anticipate that both cut and fill operations will be required for the project. C.4. Structural Loading Conditions Structural loads were not provided to us at the time this report was prepared. Based on our past experience with similar projects, however, we have assumed that the maximum loads will be on the order of 5 klf or less for continuous footings. The structural engineer for the project should verify that the assumed design loads are consistent with the actual design loads. D. GEOLOGIC SETTING D.1. General According to the Geologic Map of Frederick County, the site is underlain by several Ordovician Age limestones which includes the Bellefonte, New Market, Edinburg, and Lincolnshire Formations from The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 5 west to east, respectively. The general lithology of the limestone formations are described as light to dark colored, crystalline and nodular limestones with some chert. Some small limestone outcrops are primarily visible within the central portion of the site. Residual overburden soils weathered from the parent carbonate rock generally consist of low to high plasticity silty clays and clayey silts with various amounts of rock fragments. These carbonate rock formations are moderately solution -prone, highly calcareous and weather differentially to produce a pinnacled or "sawtooth" top of rock profile. The degree of weathering or solutioning within the bedrock is controlled by joint orientation and frequency. Where joints intersect or are highly fractured, subsequent solutioning is intensified creating low areas and seams that are generally filled with residual clay soils. Conversely, more competent high areas represent slightly to non -fractured rock units that are often coarse grained and only slightly solution prone. D.2. Development in Karst Areas Karst terrain is characterized by topographic features such as sinkholes, caves, internal drainage and lack of surface streams. These features are the result of the dissolution of soluble bedrock, such as limestone or dolomite, by groundwater. As groundwater enters fractures and bedding planes in soluble bedrock, it slowly dissolves the rock and enlarges the fractures. This results in the formation of solution channels or underground streams or ravines. Sinkholes are created by the subsidence of unconsolidated materials (soils) into underlying voids such as solution channels or caves. Usually, subsidence occurs slowly and steadily over geologic time. Many sinkholes, however, are caused by a sudden collapse of a solution cave when the roof of the cave becomes too thin to support the overburden materials. Sinkholes recently created by such a collapse can usually be identified by the presence of freshly broken rock outcrops around the rim or throat of the sinkhole. Based on our review of U.S.G.S. topographic information and our site observations, we did not observe any depressed areas within the project site. It is important to note, however, that there are certain risks associated with developing in these karst areas. These risks can include groundwater contamination, _J 0 The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 6 subsidence and flooding. In all these instances, water is the primary cause of the problem. Therefore, implementing proper site drainage both during and after construction can help significantly reduce this risk. The level of these risks, however, can not be clearly defined since they are partially controlled by nature. E. FIELD EXPLORATION The geotechnical investigation included drilling 3 auger probes and 4 test borings to evaluate the subsurface conditions for design and construction of the geotechnical elements of the project. The borings included Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and sampling at two and one-half (2.5) foot intervals to auger refusal on hard rock. The majority of borings and probes encountered refusal on hard rock at approximate depths ranging from 2.5 to 9.0 feet below existing grades. A geologist from our office was present full-time during the drilling operations to direct the drill crew, log all recovered soil samples, and observe groundwater and rock conditions. The locations of the borings were established by David E. McClure, A.I.A., the architect for the project, and they were located in the field by Triad by taping from known reference points. Elevations of the borings and probes were determined by interpolation of the provided topographic information. The recovered soil samples were transported to our laboratory for further testing. The approximate locations of the test borings and auger probes are shown on Plate A-2. The logs of the borings and probes are included in Appendix "B". In addition, Plate B-1 contains a description of the classification system and terminology used. F. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS F.1. Soil Strata The soil strata defined by the exploration for the planned development consisted of the soil materials described below. Stratification lines indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate boundary between material types and the transition may be gradual. ** Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in all borings. The topsoil generally consisted of a black organic clayey silt • The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 7 with various amounts of grass roots. Topsoil thickness ranged from approximately 8 to 14 inches. ** Residual soils were encountered below the topsoil in all borings to depths of auger refusal on hard rock. The residual soils generally consisted of brown, medium to high plasticity silty clays with varying amounts of weathered rock fragments. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values generally ranged from 13 blows per foot to 50 blows for 2 inches of penetration indicating a stiff consistency to very dense relative density. Resistances in excess of 50 blows per foot were generally obtained in zones containing a significant amount of rock. Samples of the residual soils were generally moist at the time of the field exploration. F.2. Groundwater Observations Groundwater levels were checked both during and at completion of the drilling operations. A static groundwater level was not encountered during the drilling operations. Although a static groundwater level was not observed within the site, a perched or seasonal water table could develop within the residual soils in the wet winter to spring months. This condition is especially prevalent within high plasticity residual soils overlying limestone bedrock. Fluctuations in perched groundwater levels may occur due to variations in environmental conditions, surface drainage and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. G. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with appropriate ASTM and VTM standard test methods. Details of the results of the laboratory tests are contained in Appendix "C". A summary of the laboratory tests is presented below. 1) Natural moisture contents ranged from approximately 8 percent to 30 percent. 2) Two (2) Atterberg Limits tests performed on representative residual soil samples indicated liquid limits of 49 and 70 with plasticity indices of 29 and 37, respectively. 0 0 The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 8 3) Two (2) sieve analysis tests performed on these samples indicated approximately 27 to 82 percent passing the #200 sieve. Based on the Unified Soil Classification System, the samples were classified as low to high plasticity silty clays and clayey gravels (CL and GC). 4) One (1) Standard Proctor test indicated a maximum dry density of 102.0 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an optimum moisture content of 20.0 percent. 5) One (1) CBR test indicated a corrected CBR value of 1.2 percent in a soaked condition for a specimen compacted to 100 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density of the Standard Proctor method (VTM-1) . H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN The following sections present our recommendations for design and construction of the geotechnical elements of the proposed Salvation Army buildings project located in Winchester, Virginia. The subsurface data obtained from our field exploration, the results of our laboratory tests, our past experience with similar projects and the noted design criteria were the basis for our assessment of the geotechnical issues now evident at the site. H.1. Foundations We recommend that shallow foundations be designed and constructed to bear on controlled, compacted fill and/or on approved residual soils. We recommend that a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf be utilized to proportion shallow foundations for the proposed structures. Based on the proposed floor elevation of 702.5 and the results of our field exploration, hard rock will likely be encountered at some of the proposed foundation levels during construction. In addition, an irregular top of rock profile is common within the limestone geologic formation at the site and hard rock may be encountered at higher elevations than those indicated on the boring logs. Therefore, if partial rock bearing is encountered at the bottom of the proposed footing levels, we recommend that the rock be undercut approximately one (1) foot and replaced with compacted soil fill. This treatment generally reduces the magnitude of The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 9 differential settlements associated with footings bearing partially on rock and partially on soil. Minimum widths of two (2) and three (3) feet should be adopted for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. These minimum dimensions are suggested to prevent a local shear or "punching" type failure of the bearing materials. All exterior footings should be placed at least; thirty (30) inches below the final outside grade for frost protection. Interior footings within permanently heated areas may be placed at a nominal depth below the finished floor elevation. It is estimated that total settlements for foundations bearing on approved residual soils and/or controlled fill will be one (1) inch or less. Differential settlements are anticipated to be one- half (112) inch or less. Differential settlements along continuous wall footings are not expected to exceed an angular distortion of 0.002 inch/inch. The bearing subgrade should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer or qualified representative from our office to confirm compliance with these recommendations and verify the subgrade as a load bearing material. H.2. Floor Slabs We have assumed that the proposed structures will include concrete slabs supported on grade and bearing on approved residual soils and/or controlled fill. Consequently, we recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction,"k", equal to 100 pci be adopted for design of the slab -on -grade. If hard rock is encountered above the final subgrade level for the floor slabs, we recommend that the hard rock be removed to at least the design soil subgrade level. A minimum 4-inch layer of clean, crushed stone such as ASTM designation No. 57 coarse aggregate should be placed under the slab -on -grade to serve as a capillary water barrier and a leveling surface. A six (6) mil thick polyethylene vapor barrier should be placed above the crushed stone. Proper joint installation should be specified and maintained throughout construction of the floor slabs. Joints should be installed in the floor slabs in accordance with the recommendations specified by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Where construction joints are required in heavy traffic areas such as 0 The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 10 loading docks and storage areas, we strongly recommend the use of dowelled joints rather than keyed joints. The dowelled joints provide a positive transfer of shear forces and prevent movements. Sawing should be applied at all contraction joints. H.3. Subgrade Criteria for Pavement Design A CBR test was performed on a composite soil sample collected from the auger probes. The results of the CBR test indicated a CBR value of 1.2 percent at approximately 100 percent compaction. Based on the laboratory tests and our experience with these soils, we recommend that a CBR value of 1.0 percent be used for pavement design. If greater Subgrade support is desired, a stabilization geotextile such as a Mirafi 50OX or an approved equivalent can be considered to slightly reduce the pavement thickness. A comparison should be developed based on the cost to use a stabilization geotextile and the cost savings of the reduced pavement materials when a geotextile is used. The final pavement Subgrade should have a sufficient crown or slope to provide positive drainage off of and away from the pavement areas at all times. In addition, drainage ditches and/or inlets should be constructed for the access roads and parking areas to maintain drainage and divert runoff away from the pavement subgrade. If any concrete pavement areas are planned, i.e. for dumpster pads or delivery truck areas, we recommend a modulus of Subgrade reaction, "k", of 100 pci be used for design. The concrete pavement areas should be underlain by at least six (6) inches of compacted crushed aggregate and stabilization geotextile. I. CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1. Site Preparation Initial site clearing and grubbing should consist of removal of the surface topsoil and any trees within the building and pavement areas and extending ten (10) feet beyond all fill slopes. Based on our field exploration, we anticipate that approximately 8 to 14 inches of topsoil will be required to be removed from these The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 11 areas. The topsoil materials can be stockpiled for landscape purposes or hauled off site. After removal of the unsuitable surface soils, the subgrade soils should be heavily proof -rolled with approved construction equipment to locate isolated soft spots or areas of excessive "pumping" which are too wet to accommodate compacted fill. These areas should be either sgarified, air-dried to a sufficient moisture content and re -compacted prior to fill placement or excavated and removed to a level of stable soils. The exposed subgrade should be inspected and tested by our office prior to placement of compacted fill. 1.2. Cut Areas With the exception of the surface organic soils, on -site residual soils removed from anticipated cut areas in the western portion of the site are generally suitable for use as fill material provided that compaction criteria are strictly maintained. The results of the laboratory moisture content tests on representative limestone residual soils on site indicate that the soil materials may have to be dried by as much as 5 to 10 percent by weight to attain a satisfactory moisture content that is within two (2) percent of the optimum moisture content based on the Standard Proctor method (ASTM D 698). As indicated in previous sections of this report, the limestone bedrock present beneath the site generally weathers differentially to produce a very irregular top of rock profile. Consequently, it is quite impossible to predict where rock will be encountered at locations between specific exploration points. In general, the residual soils present can be excavated with conventional earth moving equipment such as backhoes, pans and tracked loaders. Decomposed rock encountered can probably be removed with a ripper. However, hard bedrock or large boulders will most likely require blasting for effective removal if encountered. Proper management of the cut areas by the contractor will minimize the increase in soil moisture contents resulting from precipitation and runoff. This can be accomplished by maintaining proper water runoff slopes and sealing the surface with a smooth drum roller at the end of each day. Control of drainage during construction will likely be critical for proper placement of fill materials and limiting erosion and siltation. The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 12 It is strongly recommended that proper construction planning be developed to establish methods and procedures for drying of wet cut soils prior to compaction. This can be accomplished by discing or harrowing the wet soils both prior to excavation and after placement. 1.3. Controlled Fill I.3.a. Satisfactory Soils As stated earlier, on -site residual materials excavated from cut areas can be used for fill provided that compaction criteria are strictly maintained. The low to high plasticity silty clays are relatively sensitive to moisture fluctuations and typically, can be effectively placed and compacted only during drier seasons. Use of these soils during wet or rainy seasons is often futile due to the time and effort required to - dry the material to achieve adequate compaction. All proposed fill materials should be approved by a geotechnical engineer as satisfactory fill material prior to placement. Blasted or "shot" limestone rock can be utilized for fill if maximum particle size criteria are observed and "nesting" of boulders is prohibited. in addition, mixtures of on -site soils and "shot" rock have often been utilized with some success in non-structural fill zones such as pavement areas. Satisfactory soil materials placed below the top one (1) foot of pavement subgrade areas should be free of rock or gravel larger than twelve (12) inches in any dimension. Satisfactory soil materials placed below all structures and in the top one (1) foot of pavement subgrade areas should be free of rock or gravel larger than six (6) inches in any dimension. All satisfactory soil materials should not contain any debris, waste, or frozen materials. Also, they should contain less than two (2) percent vegetation -organic materials by weight. Satisfactory soil materials should be submitted by the contractor to the testing agency one week prior to placement of that material to allow time for completion of the necessary laboratory tests. I.3.b. Placement and Compaction Before compaction, each layer should be moistened or aerated as necessary to obtain the required compaction. Each The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 13 layer should be compacted to the required percentage of maximum dry density. Fill should not be placed on surfaces that are muddy or frozen, or have not been approved by testing and/or proof -rolling. Free water should be prevented from appearing on the surface during or subsequent to compaction operations. Soil material which is removed because it is too wet to permit proper compaction, can be stockpiled, or spread and allowed to dry. Drying can be facilitated by discing, harrowing, or by pulverizing, until the moisture content is reduced to an acceptable level. When the soil is too dry, water should be applied uniformly to the subgrade surface or to the layer to be compacted. All fill material compacted by heavy compaction equipment should be placed in maximum 10-inch loose lifts. All fill material compacted by hand -operated tampers or light compaction equipment should be placed in maximum 4-inch loose lifts. Fill material placed below and extending ten (10) feet beyond the buildings should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor method (ASTM D 698). Fill placed within the top one (1) foot of pavement subgrade areas should be compacted to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Fill placed below the top one (1) foot of pavement subgrade areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the same standard (ASTM D 698). The moisture content of the soils should be at or within two (2) percentage points of their optimum moisture content. 1.4. Utility Excavations Invert elevations for proposed utilities were not provided to us at the time this report was prepared. Based on our field exploration, we believe that both soils and hard rock will be encountered during utility excavations. We anticipate that conventional excavating equipment such as a backhoe can be used for utility excavations in the overburden soils. Excavations where limestone rock is encountered will likely require rock excavation techniques such as heavy ripping, hoe -ram chipping or blasting to attain scheduled invert elevations. • The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 14 Utility trenches should be sloped and/or supported in accordance with current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (O.S.H.A.) requirements. Backfill of trenches below pavements and structures should be performed in accordance with the Controlled Fill section of this report. 1.5. Foundation Installation We anticipate that conventional earth excavation equipment such as a backhoe can be utilized to excavate the residual soils or controlled fill for foundation construction. In areas where hard rock is encountered, a minimum of 1 foot of rock undercut should be performed and replaced with controlled, compacted fill. All footing excavations for the proposed structures should be examined by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified representative from our office prior to placing concrete to confirm that the required bearing support is available. Foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are completed to reduce the potential for softening due to precipitation and/or runoff. Any loose soils encountered at the bottom of proposed footings should be compacted with light compaction equipment in order to minimize differential settlements. 1.6. Floor Slab Installation Proof -rolling of the slab subgrade soil within the limits of the structure should be performed prior to construction of the slab in order to detect any soft/wet "pumping" areas. Any soft "pumping" areas should be either scarified, aerated to an approved moisture content, and re -compacted or undercut and replaced with controlled, compacted fill. 1.7. Construction Monitoring We recommend that the geotechnical engineering firm of record, Triad Engineering, be retained to monitor the construction activities to verify that the field conditions are consistent with the findings of our investigation. if significant variations are encountered, or if the design is altered, we should be notified. The geotechnical engineer of record should provide personnel full-time to: The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 15 1) observe final topsoil removal and observe and approve proof - rolling operations of original subgrade materials prior to initial fill placement. 2) monitor, test and approve subgrades and soil layers before, during, and after fill placement. Field density tests should be performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556 (sand cone method) or ASTM D 2922 (nuclear method) . At least three field density tests should be performed for each lift or a minimum of every 2,500 square feet of fill placed to confirm the required soil compaction. J. LIMITATIONS This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared by Triad Engineering for the exclusive use of The Salvation Army and their design team for specific application to the planned Salvation Army buildings in Winchester, Virginia. The work on the project has been carried out in accordance with reasonable and acceptable engineering practices. No other warranty, either written or implied, is applicable on this work. Subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the test boring and auger probe locations. The boring and probe logs are intended to only represent the conditions at each location when the sampling occurred. Classifications of the recovered soil samples are based on recognized standards. The interpretations and recommendations in this report are based solely on the information available at the time this report was prepared. In the event that the location or design of the structures is altered, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein should not be considered valid unless we have been given the opportunity to review the changes. It is strongly recommended that we be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. If we are not accorded the privilege of making this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The Salvation Army RE: G-734 September 23, 1992 Page 16 The nature and extent of variations between test boring locations and observed conditions may not become evident until construction. It is suggested that we be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the fill placement and foundation excavation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and/or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to construction. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services during the design phase of the project. Please contact us at 703-667-9300 if you have any questions regarding this report or require additional information. O�'gF,BLTH OP jr o � DANIEL R. HAMRIC No.022070 ''�p.,I�NAL E11 Sincerely: TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. Daniel R. Hamric, P.E. Project Engineer L. Moulton, P.E. A�an President Attachments: Appendix "A" - Illustrations Appendix "B" - Field Exploration Appendix "C" - Laboratory Testing Appendix "A" ILLUSTRATIONS tv .. a.... N '� H i � I / 1 1'. n•.••. •wl l.i .l'••i i •... ..• NH t a • l/ .�1.� .�.�1 i 1 ..:«..;�"��'-: I e'' AND i \q • r': (� 1J ::: 1 . a 6 ate ';�� err i::a � .. �? i • — � i„ • / _•g it , . • J•• / 1 �� .I725* � 1 � � • C . c Srr _ a e = \ -&�di r •l� „ "^1J �� f � Cam ��--� � �"�(�� J 687X . IT / . /� '•�� . WJtlJ _ ' of . 'r J all r 3s Par ©' _ ' • I r hs � � '/• APPROXXILIATE •�. ' •. �3 SITE LOCATION \. , Kci h 2 ,�, oRa a •-. Rr� I na 1 al BMA le,. �• 1 •�1 l i n+ SCALE 1:24WO 0 1 MILE 1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 WINCHESTER, VA. N3907.5—W7807.5/7.5 n..�JVIRGINIAO 1966 inn PHOTOREVISED 1978 QUADRANGLE LOCATION AMS 5362 II NW —SERIES V834 m :; PLATE NO. SITE LOCATION PLAN A_! 00 L 00. AP-3 -0 roe 3•xua� ~''`�'.�, b' / Sys Q e 1 }_� ,ot•in i+w �s LoL B-2 0 oil I ,Ji � _ �T/ ' 7�+1i►a'1.� s'2i ;il Lem • 'V °' �I ,i-ffvtd'�r►a� 34" J. '5 AP-2.� 71 , LEGEND: 4 ; 'a,y 6 1 pp g AP-� - Approximate test boring location ovz I Approximate auger probe location NOTES: ! wL B-4 0 1) Base plan taken from Site Plan i/ Lt 'a .M�! 1 i � provided by David E. McClure, A.I.A., Architect, dated July 24, 1992. JIb _ n 9 = ~'— " u- p 2) Scale: 140' BORING AND PROBE LOCATION PLAN �� avrftL ",� -101 - •area-Ta�,rb5 PLATE NO. ` A-2 E u Appendix "B" FIELD EXPLORATION FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling 4 test borings with Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and sampling and drilling 3 auger probes. The borings and probes were drilled by Triad utilizing a Mobile B-53 truck mounted drill rig and 3.25-inch I.D. hollow stem augers to advance the borings and probes. SPT and sampling was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT's were performed to depths indicated on the attached boring logs using a split barrel sampler with an outside diameter of two (2) inches and an inside diameter of one and three -eighths (1-318) inches. The split barrel sampler was driven eighteen (18) inches with a hammer weighing approximately 140 pounds and falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the split barrel sampler at six (6) inch increments was recorded on the boring logs. The method utilized to classify the soils is defined in Plate B-1, Soils Classification System. TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. KEY TO IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL SAMPLES The material descriptions on the logs indicate the visual identification of the soils recovered from the exploration and are based on the following criteria. Major soil components are designated by capital letters and minor components are described by terms indicating the percentage by weight of each component. Unified Soil Classifications Symbols are used only when lab tests have been performed. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and sampling was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1586. N-Values in blows per foot are used to describe the RELATIVE DENSITY of Coarse -grained Soils or the CONSISTENCY of Fine- grained Soils. The MAJOR components constitute more than 500 of sample and have the following size designation: I_nMDnATVMM Boulders Cobbl es Gravel -coarse -fine Sand -coarse -medium -fine Silt or Clay PARTICLE SIZE 12 inches plus 3 to 12 inches 314 to 3 inches #4 to 314 inch #10 to #4 #40 to #10 #200 to #40 MINOR components have the following percentage desi gnati on. ADJECTIVE PERCENT "and" 35 - 50 "some" 20 - 35 "little" 10 - 20 "trace" 0 - 10 Minus #200 (Fine-grained Soil) RELATIVE DENSITY Term N-Val ue Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 5 to 10 Medium Dense 11 to 30 Dense 31 to 50 Very Dense over 50 SOIL PLASTICITY none slight low medi um hi gh very high PLASTICITY INDEX 0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 20 to 40 over 40 CONSISTENCY Term N-Value Very Soft 0 to 2 Soft 3 to 4 Medium Stiff 5 to 8 Stiff 9 to 15 Very Stiff 16 to 30 Hard over 30 MOISTURE DESCRIPTION Dry - Dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp but no visible water Wet - Visible free water PLATE B-1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM " TR� ENG=NE$RING �NC _ Job Number: G-734 DRILLING LOG Boring Number: B-1 (Client: Salvation Army Total Depth of Hole: 9.0' (Sheet 1 of 1 Salvation Army Building ,Date Drilled: September 4, 1992 ,Project: IlLocation: Winchester, Virginia ITop of Hole Elev.: 705.4 +/- Designation of Drill: Mobile B-53 (Groundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion Size Type & Type of Augers: 3.25" ID HSA ; I (DEPTH S.# BLOWS/6" GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION I REMARKS 1 t 141 1 I 14" TOPSOIL i !! j 81 i 1 it ! #1 ! lei !� 2 Brown silty CLAY, hard, very high ' { 14 3 --? { �18 plasticity, some manganese staining, moist; {) { trace quartz$ moist II }#2 I31 I I ! 4 1 } 81 { Very stiff, high plasticity, some i — I1 } weathered limestone fragments ! 6 1 18 1#3 121 7 }� I { Moist to wet in weathered limestone { 112 8 {I I { 18 I !� --4 i {� 1#4 {5"i RESIDUAL' } 9 AUGER REFUSAL AT 9.0 FEET ± j 1 � 1 112 i { ! j 13 } 14 iI 15 I 1 16 — i i TRI* ENGINEERING, 4LC7,- Job Nimber: G-734 DRILLING L9G Boring Number: B-2 11Client: Salvation Army Total Depth of Hole: 4.5' JSheet 1 of 1 iProject: Salvation Army Building iDate Drilled: September 4, 1992 ! 1, IiLocation: Winchester, Virginia !Top of Hole Elev.: 701.5 1 Il Designation of Drill: Mobile B-53 (Groundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion �! �ISize & Type of Augers: 3.25" ID HSA DEPTH S.# BLOWS/6"I GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION REMARKS 41 1 1 8" TOPSOIL i I #1 61 1 it 2 ' I f I I Augger refusal �22 ! Tan -blue silty CLAY and mottled SAND, very @ 2.5' 1 I) 3 --� I stiff some weathered limestone fragments, 121!501 low plasticity, moist Offset 10.0' east it .i i #2 ! 5" 1 !, 4 RESIDUAL I I ! ! r AUGER REFUSAL AT 4.5 FEET 5 it 6 I i ,7�1 � 1 i 8 ! 9 ! •I —1 1 � I � ! I 112 I 113 f 114 —1 �f I 4 I ,16 i I =&D ENG2NEER=1qG „ %q0 _ Job Number: G-734 DRILLING LOG Boring Number: B-3 Client: Salvation Army JTotal Depth of Hole: 6.0' Sheet 1 of 1 Project: Salvation Army Building JDate Drilled: September 4, 1992 ,Location: Winchester, Virginia !Top of Hole Elev.: 700.0 "Designation of Drill: Mobile B-53 (Groundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion ;Size & Type of Augers: 3.25" ID HSA !DEPTHIS.#,BLOWS/6--1 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION REMARKS " 4i i 12" TOPSOIL i � 151 I #1 I 8 ! i 2 ----�—j Auger refusal (! 112! " I Brown sandy SILT, dense some weathered @ 2.5' 3 —i limestone fragments, little manganese, I �141191 trace quartz; moist Offset 10.0' I) northeast i #2 I it 4 it 5 I I Tan -brown -blue silty CLAY and mottled � 9) SAND, hard, some weathered limestone and i 9150 chert, moist 6 ( #3 1 j I3"1 RESIDUALI i AUGER REFUSAL AT 6.0 FEET 7 8 I9 ' I Z0 i I i � i � I 12 I 13 I I I ! (114 115 ` 1 16 --� T.R S1JG=NESR'.ING a �C _ Job Number: G-734 DRILLING LOG Boring Number: B-4 Client: Salvation Army ITotal Depth of Hole: 3.5' Sheet 1 of 1 !Project: Salvation Army Building (Date Drilled: September 4, 1992 ! !!Location: Winchester, Virginia !Top of Hole Elev.: 697.5 +/- IDesignation of Drill: Mobile B-53 jGroundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion `Size & Type of Augers: 3.25" ID HSA ;DEPTH S.#'BLOWS/6"j GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION REMARKS I 4 i 8" TOPSOIL I outcrop limle estone I 1 ! 11I i south 1 Ii I #1 501 2"I A@ , uge5refusal i ; ! { II 2 —� Offset 10.0' east !, 3 —{ I Brown silty CLAY, hard high pplasticity, I limestone fragments, Iittle Augger refusal i @ 2.5' ! i12 ` some rounded gravel, moist RESIDUALI Offset 10.0' -{#2 i ! 1201 I ! northwest 1 14AUGER REFUSAL AT 3.5 FEET ; !I 5 i �I 6 —( II ! ! I { I 7 ! ! I { I I I 4 g --I j i I I i ' 9 I II�10 ---I i � �12 ! 13 � i I15 i i I 1 16 —� 1 TRIO ENGINEERING a &C - Job Number: G-734 DRILLING LOG Probe Number: AP-1 IlClient: Salvation Army ITotal Depth of Hole: 4.5' ISheet 1 of 1 I� !!Project: Salvation Army Building ;Date Drilled: September 4, 1992 iLocation: Winchester, Virginia Top of Hole Elev.: 695.5 IDesignation of Drill: Mobile B-53 Groundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion i) Size & Type of Augers: 3.25'' ID HSA Size GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION REMARKS I, ---; Brown silty CLAY, medium lasticity, I ?ragments, 1 some weathered limestone I� I moist I, �I 2 ' 3 I Augger refusal 4 —� @ 4 0 i' fi RESIDUAL I fl Offset 10' east I' AUGER REFUSAL AT 4.5 FEET I I i' 5 i I 6 i I! II 7 I i g !i ,9� i I I! i i11 � ji 12 j f 13 i 114 II I I _ 115 I it li 16 I I I = • EN4GINHMZ1EN4G� *NO - Job Number: G-734 DRILLING LOG Probe Number: AP-2 . 1 Client: Salvation Army jTotal Depth of Hole: 4.0' jSheet 1 of 1 �f (Project: Salvation Army Building iDate Drilled: September 4, 1992 I� �ILocation: Winchester, Virginia ITop of Hole Elev.: 695.8 +/- !'Designation of Drill: !Size Mobile B-53 Groundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion ! &Type of Augers: 3.25" ID HSA PEPTHI GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION ! REMARKS j i I Brown silty CLAY, medium plasticity, I 1 — some rock fragments, moist I! Auger refusal A2 11 3 Offset 10.0' east i RES I DUAL I� 4 AUGER REFUSAL AT 4.0 FEET j 5 � I j l 1! 6 'I —a 'I I i ' 7 —a i I8 I I II 9 �I I! 12 I 113 —� i 14 -- !� 15 I i! � Job Number: G-734 -THIML ENGINgBI21N4G„ CC_ DRILLING LOG Probe Number: AP JClient: Salvation Army JTotal Depth of Hole: 6.5- (Sheet 1 of 1 Project: Salvation Army Building JDate Drilled: September 4, 1992 (Location: Winchester Virginia !Top of Hole Elev.: 698.0 / (Designation of Drill: Mobile B-53 lGroundwater Elev.: Dry At Completion Size & Type of Augers: 3.25" ID HSA DEPTH( GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION REMARKS Brown silty CLAY, medium plasticity, j 1 some rock fragments, moist 12 13 14 1 5 -j Orange -brown silty CLAY 6 7 8 9 10 �11 I 12 13 !14 15 16 AUGER REFUSAL AT 6.5 FEET RESIDUAL DNI1 91 AHOI V21OSd'I 11 D,, xtpuaddV a 0 0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples obtained from the test boring operations were visually classified in the field by a engineering geologist of Triad Engineering. The recovered soils were further evaluated by the performance of laboratory tests. Laboratory soil tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASTM and VTM Standards as listed below: 1) Atterberg Limits tests, consisting of the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index were performed in accordance with ASTM D;4318. 2) Grain size analyses with washed No. 200 sieve tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 422. 3) Moisture content tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2216. 4) Standard Proctor tests were performed in accordance with VTM- 1. 5) California Bearing Ratio tests were performed in accordance with VTM-8. A summary of the laboratory tests are included on the following pages of this appendix. TRIAD ENGINEERING, I NC. SOIL ORTA SUMMARY SAMPLE ID, SAMPLE DF F5 1 H ( ft � SAMPLE TYPE NATURAL MOISTURE (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL IPI GRADATION V. V. ''A gravel sand f roes USCS SOIL CLASS, PROCTOR MAX, OD OPT , M (pcf) (%i ADD I T I QIIAL TESTS C0N'U'1JCTED S-1 1-5 Bulk 26.0 49 20 29 1 2 16 82 CL 102.0 20.0 California Bearin2 Ratio B-1 2.5-4 SS 28.7 B-1 15-6.5-SS 26.2 B-2 12.5-4 SS 8.7 70 33 37 39 34 27 GC B-3 2.5-4 SS 17.8 B-3 5-6.5 SS 29.5 B-4 2.5-4 SS 28.0 NOTES: t) Soil iesis performed ,n accordance w,ih recogn zed ASTM or VTM test,ng S t a n d a r d s, 2) SS - Sp I I t Spoon UD = Undisturbed PROJECT NUMBER G-734 PROJECT NAME Salvation ArmyBuildi�s PROJECT LOCAT I ON Winchester,_ VA DATE 9-17-92 PLATE NO. C-1 J U S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCITES U S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS o -, ili , 3i. 1 - 3i -a A R a In in Ia ')n an nn Gn -7n inn len inn HYDROMETER 100 9C 8C H 7C 6C r Cr m Z 5C w 4C U cc LU a. 3C zC 1C 1111 11111111 in Milli Mmmm leis lmm�mmllllmm 111101 HillINIMINE,OEM I m 1111111111111110 I0 milmml m111111mM1 JIMEM111111ME 11111.EM .E111111mom 1111111EM111111MEM in Immmillmom =�� IN No GRAIN SIZE-mm. COBBLES -- GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE I COARSEI MEDIUM I FINE 1mimmME n all 30 = LU to } m i 0 vi Cr a O U i 0 I- Z w U rt '0 w a Im r BORING OR ELEV, OR V. Z x NAT. U, S. C, S, SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION GRAVEL SAND FINES x M LL PL PI SYMBOL B-2 2.5-4 Brown clavev GRAVEL, some sand 39 34 1 27 1 8.7 70 L 33 —1 37 1 GC TRIAD Project No. Salvation Army Buildings GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT Plate G-734 Winchester, VA C-2 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCITES U S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 90 80 70 W 3 60 m w 50 Z LL F-- w 40 U Cr w (L KL 20 10 0 0 W 10 = W 0 3 } m m W 0 U) Cr Q 0 U 0 1.- z w U 0 w a 0 0 70 500 100 50 10 5 1 05 0.1 GRAIN SIZE — mm. 0.05 U.U1 u.Uub u.UU1 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE I COARSE1 MEDIUM I FINE BORING OR SAMPLE NO, ELEV, OR DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Z GRAVEL SAND FINES NAT, Z M LL PL PI U.S,C,S, SYMBOL S-1 1-5 Brown silty CLAY, little sand, trace 2 16 82 26.0 49 20 2 gravel GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT P I a t e C-3 TRIAD Project No. G-743 Salvation Army Buildings Winchester, VA Ah SAMPLEPROJECT SOIL NO: S-1 DATE- 9-15-92 . • .-trace gravel LOCATION SAMPLED: Auger Probes • OR DEPTH (ft): 1-5 TEST METHOD: • 11 / ��_I_��-I_��-f—��-1_�� ■■��I��I��I��I�■IV'� • - 3) MOISTURE • • • - 1 5 SWELL Not Applicable I • ••D INCREASES (1b): • 0.05 to . I .• LARGEST .•. No.1' G-743 Salvation Army Bldgs. Winchester, VA ,,CALIFORNIA BEARING REPORTProject �RATIO TEST