Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout48-07 Lantz Construction - Industrial - Shawnee - BackfileO DATE NO. (J 7 7 1 87 u o RECEIVED FROM co" °'] Y ADDRESS iG CCl/Or)! l"lQ� ✓�C1�QS?�% Cc ;Z�(�O d � . _ Q 9) y p L LL� i�C t.��(L; �� �' 3c o -� cr Q O N Y Q) N .U� ❑FOR RENT DOLLARS S Q ❑FOR `II x N to AMT. ACCOUNT CASH ( I�1 / -1" lil'f I I N O U AMT. PAID BALANCE < CHECK MONEY I U >~ DUE ORDER BY I wE�-D3� SITE PLAN TRACKING SHEET Date: File opened 0 Reference Manual updated/number assigned �Vto D-base updated LO ' J 8 • o File given to Renee' to update Application Action Summary k, A — CLOSE OUT FILE: q ra al Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant/copy made for file *10 File stamped "approved", "denied" or "withdrawn" qL))6q Reference Manual updated *-�Lb D-base updated . 0' File given to Renee' for final update to Application Action Summary mki U.\B3 ,.\C0mm0n\Tracking sheets\.Si r Plan Tracking wpd Rnised 02107/03 SITE PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST The cbecklist shourn below specifies the informai:ion which is required to be submitted as part of the site plan application. The Deparfineut of Planning & Development will review the application to ensure that it is complete prior to accepting it. If any portion of the application is not complete, it will be returned to the applkant(s). (1) One (1) set of approved ca=ent sheets are required from each relevant review agency prior to final approval of a site plan. It is recommended that applicants contact the Department of Planning & Development to detemaine which review agencies' are relevant to their site plan application. A list of potentially relevant review agencies is shown below: Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Department of GIS (Geographic Information Services) Frederick County Sanitation Authority ✓ Frederick County Building Inspections Department V/ Frederick County Department of Public Works Frederick County Fire Marshal Frederick County Health Department X Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) '( City of Winchester _ Town of Stephens City x Town of Middletown ^7— Frederick County / Winchester AirportAuthority (2) One (1) copy of the Site Plan application form. (3) Payment of the site plan review fee. `� (4) One (1) reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required). • 0 M ra (OPY I r 13, 2007 Mr. K. Joe Knechtel., P.E. Potesta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Approval of Site Plan #48-07; Lantz Construction Property Identification Number (PIN): 64F-1-3 Dear Joe: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 The Frederick County Department of Planning and Development administratively approved the above - referenced site plan on September 12. 2007. The site plan is approved for the construction of a new construction office and storage lot located on Aviation Drive in the Shawnee Magisterial District. This development contains the following: • Phase I — 6,720sf office building and 3,000sf storage building. • Building II — 4,880sf office building and 3,000sf storage building. Some of the required site improvements include the following: • Construction of parking lots with a total of47 spaces. (including 2 handicap accessible), including sidewalks, landscaped islands, striping, and handicap access. • An outdoor storage area surrounded by a 6' board on board fence. • Landscaping and tree preservation areas as shown on the landscaping plan. All requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance have been met in the approved site plan, including review agency comments from all relevant review agencies. Tam providing you with three (3) copies of the approved site plan. Please forward these copies to the appropriate representative(s). Furthermore, advise the owner(s) that a copy should be kept for future reference, and an approved copy must be kept on the construction site throughout the development process. Once site development is complete, the owner(s) should contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Since an ice E. Perkins `JL Senior Planner CEP/dlw Attachments cc: Gene Fisher, Shawnee District Supervisor June Wilmot and Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Patrick Barker, EDC Commissioner of the Revenue LCCW, LLC, 600 Airport Road, Winchester, VA 22602 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • ..POTESTA TRANSMITTAL LETTER 508 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 • Phone: (540) 450-0180 • Fax: (540) 450-0182 To: Ms. Candice Perkins County of Frederick, Dept. of Planning & Dev. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Sent Via: Mail Hand Carried Date: Project No.: September 4, 2007 0103-07-0107 Federal Express United Parcel Service ❑ Other: Quantity Description 5 Sealed and signed Final Site Plans dated August 31, 2007 - Lantz Construction Company Site Plan 1 Response to Review Comments from POTESTA dated September 4, 2007 1 Approval letter from Frederick County Fire Marshall dated June 20, 2007 1 Approval letter from Winchester Regional Airport dated August 14, 2007 1 Approval letter from Frederick County Inspections dated August 10, 2007 1 Approval letter from VDOT dated August 28, 2007 1 Approval letter from the Frederick County Engineer dated July 10, 2007 1 Approval letter from Frederick County Sanitation Authority dated July 7, 2007 1 Special Limited Power of Attorney Remarks: Bv: Danielle (Dana) O. Harmon c: SEP 4 0 • Engineers and Environmental Consultants POTESTA508 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, Virginia 22602 - (540) 450.0180; www.potesta.com September 4, 2007 Ms. Candice E. Perkins, Scnior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Strect, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RE: Response to Second Site Plan Review Comments — Lantz Construction — SP#49-07 Site Development Plan in Frederick County, Virginia Project No. 0103-07-0107 Dear Ms. Perkins: Below are remarks addressing the comments, listed by item number, from your June 30, 2007 review. Item I - Special Limited Power of Attoi'liey Foi-m. The Power of'flttoi-ne), fo/'111 ivas not attached to the second submission.. • The Special Limited Power of Attorney is include with this final submittal. Item 2 - Future Parkhig. On sheet 4, show the spaces for the fittiti'e pai-king as indicated. • Parking spaces are depicted on Phase II (future). Item 3 - Screenni,s, Felice. Label the sc'1'eeiihig ft11ce as being six feet and et -tended the fence along the 1'cai' of •the storage area. • The existing fence along the Wilson property is a 6 foot high, board -on board fence; therefore, we will leave the propose fence line as indicated in our SUbmittal. Item 4 - Interior Pai-kilig. Revise the rllteirior landscaping calciilatioll as indicated on Sheet 7. • The illterl0l' pal-killg CalCUlation has been revised as you indicated. POTESTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Charleston, West Virginia • Morgantown, West Virginia • Winchester, Virginia f 1 Ms. Candice Perkins September 4, 2007 Page 2 If you have any questions, or need any further information, please contact me. Sincerely, POTESTA & ASS CIATES, INC. K. Joe Knechtel, P.E. Branch Manager KJK/cloh Attachments ,JOTESTA Fron:LIFE SAFETY Control number SP07-UU46 Project Name Lantz Construction Address 508 Front Royal Pike Type Application Site Plan Current Zoning M Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Siamese Location Not Identified • • 06/1912007 22:13 #102 P.001/001 LE COPY Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Data received 6/18/2007 City Winchester Tax ID Number 64 F-1-3 Date reviewed 6/2012007 Applicant Potesta & Associates State Zip VA 22602 Fire Dlstnct 21 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yea Requirements Hydrant Location Adequate Rea dway/AlsIowa y Width Adequate Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-450-0180 Rescue District 21 Election Disldct Sh;iwnee Residential Sprinklor System No Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No Reviewed By Signature J. Neal Title blinchesteroport 540SB22936 OBAR 02i14pm P. 0O1 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2260P (540) 662-2422 August 14, 2007 K. Joe Knechtel, P.E. Poteste & Assoolates, Incorporated 506 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re. Site Development Plan Comments — Final Review Lantz Construction Office Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Knechtel: I have received the revised sel of plans for the referenced slte plan that addresses and satisfies all of our requests regarding lighting, landscaping, notification of crane operations and prohibiting burning on site per our comment letter of June 29, 2007, Item one (1) - your reply stated that a 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction had been filed with the FAA for the building. I went to the FAA websitc this morning and they have not yet completed the review. We are not anticipating comments or requirements from the FAA that would Impact your site plan but if there are, you would have to meet their requirements. As a reminder, a separate form must be filed for any temporary construction equipment such as cranes If they will be exceeding the maximum height you listed on the form you filed for the building structure. Contingent upon requirements by the FAA, this completes our review of the Lantz Office site plan, We sincerely appreciate your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions or need additional informatlon, please do not hesitate contacting my office. Sincerely, ��� ?-� (T� Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Dept. Attn: Building Official 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 R�., I- - - - � 11 DD 7 r�Jl Hand deliver to: 107 N. Kent Street, Suite 200 North Building, 2"d Floor. Winchester, VA (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to 8 ist the gancy with their review. Please attach one (1) COD" c . i : '. -it'-. this 311 Applicant's Name: Po_esn3 F..U..o 7— Address: so© Front Royai Pike Winchester, Virginia 2.M Phone Number: _ Name of development and/or description of the request: Lantz CJnstruction Commercial site Development Plan Location of property: The property is a 2.99 acre parcel (TI.14 64F 1 3) along Aviation Drive in Frederick County, Virginia Inspec ions Doyartmen I Corot ments: ,-'o /71IV-eg /s P 21- Inspections Dept. use only Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Signature and Date _ Signature and Date (revisjar Date revision received Incornp tc 16 Date approved U �JVP 0 Lantz Construction Office - Ro to 990, Frederick County • Page 1 of I From: Joe Knechtcl Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:53 AM To: 'Ingram, Lloyd' Cc: Danielle I-Iarmon Subject: RC: Lantz Construction Office - Route 990, Frederick County Thanks Lloyd. We appreciate it. Do you know what the status is on the drainage easement plat that was delivered last week? Joe -----Original Message ----- From: Ingram, Lloyd[mai[to:Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:06 AM To: kjknechte]@POTESTA.com Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Hoffman, Gregory; mcheran@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Lantz Construction Office - Route 990, Frederick County We have received your revised site plan dated August 10, 2007 for the referenced project. It appears all of our earlier review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Please advise the owner of our approval. Also please provide six (6) sets of approved construction plans with signed seal for VDOT distribution. The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route 990 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum processing fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary & expenses of a State assigned Inspector. A copy of any/all recorded plats of dedication for drainage easements or additional right-of-way required for implementation of this proposed project should be provided to VDOT prior to issuance of any land use permits. Dedication should be made to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me or Mr. Greg Hoffman at (540) 535-1824. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Depai•Iment of Transportation Edinburg Residency/ — Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984-5611 Fax #(540) 984-5607 file:HG:\2007 Projects\07-0107 - Lantz Construction - 299 ac. Boundary Survey and Site D... 9/4/2007 • H111111I HLE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK I July 10, 2007 Mr. Kevin J. Knechtel Potesta & Associates 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Site Plan Comments - Lantz Construction Office 1�rederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. ICneclitel: Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAY: 540/678-0682 Upon review of the site plan received June 15, 2007, from Potesta & Associates, we offer the following comments: Replace the current silt fence with wire supported silt fence, as Frederick County does not allow the use of a silt fence without wire support. 2. Provide the standard MS-19 Lrosion and Sediment Control notes on the site plan. Because these continents are minor, we recommend approval of the subject project. All remaining comments shall be addressed prior to the Land Disturbance Permit Application. Please submit one set of the revised plan for our records. Sincerely, *CW` occ.lder Deputy Director JCW/mlr cc: Planning and Development file C:\Documents and Settings\NIR\Nly Documents\Iievicw FurnuatsWinor cotit tit enls\LAN1 LCONSTRUCI'ION.epd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority 315 Tasker Road Attn: Engineer Director Stephens City, VA P,O. Box 1877 (540) 868-1061 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number: Potcsta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front- Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 540-450-0180 Name of development and/or description of the request: Lantz Construction Commercial site Development Plan Location of property: The property is 2.99 acre parcel (TM 64F 1 3) along Aviation Drive in Frederick County, Virginia. Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comments: S -v F Of�i1i1 Sanitation Authority use only Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Signature and Date Signature and Date (revision) Date revision received Date approved Incomplete Date reviewed 14 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PO Box 1877, Winchester, VA 22604 315 Tasker Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 540.868.1061 Voice 540.868.1429 Fax Project 2-A&T 5 C 04/ 6 7A ACT/ 0/Y eJ/95-ICE' Applicant P c) 7,6 57-A REVIEW STATUS review number correct & resubmit approved approved as Holed number of items to be corrected o DRAWINGS send me by 9 J l/L o 7 1. print of sheets /,, 2. two CDs: each disc shall contain the following plan sheepe— a. one CD (containing all of the above noted sheets) shall be in PDF format. Each sheet shall be in its own file and be in landscape orientation. Each file shall be titled with the project name and appropriate sheet number. b. one CD (containing all of the above noted sheets) shall be in DWG format. Each sheet shall be in its own file and each file shall be titled with the project nanne and appropriate sheet number. Each sheet shall (1) be in landscape orientation, (2) be without a border, (3) be in state plane coordinate system NAD 83, and (4) be compatible with AutoCAD 2006. c. each of the two CDs shall be labeled with its format and project name, and placed in a CD sleeve EASEMENTS Y /® I need a copy of the recorded ofsite water -and4-or--sewer- easement(s). Y /QI need a copy of the recorded offsite water and/or sewer easennent(s). I need a copy of the recorded deed(s) of casement before service will be authorized. OTHER Y /li This project also requires DEQ - Valley Region approval. 4411 Early Road, P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801 (540-574-7814) Y / N) This project also requires VDI-I — Lexington Office approval. 131 Walker St., Lexington, J/A 24450 (540-463-7136) Date: 7 c/ y L U 7- John G. Whitacre - Senior Engineer i\/IAY 07 0 . 0 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: wwwxQ,frederlck.va.tts Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, VlrCinla, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-465-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) _ CG 4.1 %jL,o (Phone) 5-40 - 6 (—, 7 'Ul3U (Address) Zabc,, ALR_Iau�t T iJt'UL*1iTZ-,YZ ti the owner(s) of all those Tracts or parcels of I (" Propeny'� conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No_ on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint- (Name) PU I CSS l e4 (Phanc) — D/� tr j (Address) 56 5A PP_UnJl ;ZUy4L P1KL )l&%)C. 'Zile^z- , V,4 Z �n�J To act as my true and lawful ariomey-in-fact for and in my (ur) name, place, and stcari ith full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (including proffers) 0 Conditional Use Permits ❑ iKaster Development Plan (Preliminary and PinFd) ❑ Subdivision IZ Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amtndments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year tom the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this ___S, day of 200 _:l State of Virginia, Cityounty of r— R L:,- ✓J tE 2 1 C_ k.— To -wit: I,_ C \.t. a Notary Public in and for thejurisdict.ion aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally mewed before me and has ac wledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this -3 1 day of 200�. My Commission Expires; I l NO PO 2'd 28TOOSb:Di :W06A SO:60 Federal Aviation Acoistration Aeronautical Study No. +` Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2007-AEA-3624-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Issued Date: 09/05/2007 Mr. Max A. Clatterbuck Lantz Construction Company Of Winchcstcr, Inc. 600 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION * The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Fcdcral Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building Lantz Const. Co. of Winchcstcr-Office Bldg. Location: Winchcstcr, VA Latitude: 39-8-13.52 N NAD 83 Longitude: 78-8-39.16 W Heights: 38 feet above ground level (AGL) 748 feet above nican sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical StUdy revealed that the StrUCIUI-C does not exceed ObStrllCtlOn Standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following conciition(s), if any, is(arc) inct: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. I-Iowcvcr, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished On a voluntary basis, we I-cconi 1Cnd it be Installed and maiI1tained iIl accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. This determination expires on 03/05/2009 unless: (a) extended, revised Or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the COIlSIi-l1Ct1011 IS Subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application fora construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date Of this determination. In SUCi1 case, the determination expires oil the date prescribed by the FCC for completion Of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description Which includes specific coordinates, licights, frcquency(ics) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use Of greater power will void this determination. Any future COnStRiCtlO11 or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. Page] of 2 This determination does includeWorary construction Cqulpillellt SUCH as es, derricks, etc., which may be Used during actual COI1StrUCtlOu Of file Structure. I-lowcvci-, this Cqulpmellt sha not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the SIUdICd Structure requires Separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure On the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor ol'compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission If the structure Is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our OIfiCc at (425) 91 7-6767. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2007-AEA-3624-OE. Signature Control No: 529289-100618934 Kathic Curran Technician Page 2 of 2 (DNIF) Lantz Construction Office - B to 990, I11-ede1'ic1< County • Page I of I Mark Cheran From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:06 AM To: kjknechtel@POTESTA.com Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Hoffman, Gregory; mcheran@co.frederick.va.us Subject: Lantz Construction Office - Route 990, Frederick County We have received your revised site plan dated August 10, 2007 for the referenced project. It appears all of our earlier review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Please advise the owner of our approval. Also please provide six (6) sets of approved construction plans with signed seal for VDOT distribution. The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route 990 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum processing fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary & expenses of a State assigned Inspector. A copy of any/all recorded plats of dedication for drainage easements or additional right-of-way required for implementation of this proposed project should be provided to VDOT prior to issuance of any land use permits. Dedication should be made to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me or Mr. Greg Hoffman at (540) 535-1824. Lloyd A. Ingram, Traiisportatioit Engineer Virginia Departmetrt of Traiisportatiort Edinburg Residency — Land Developnreitt 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Vi ghda 22824 Phone #(540) 984-5611. Fax #(540) 984-5607 8/31 /2007 t 0 -I- Mr. Kevin J. Knechtel Potesta & Associates 508 Front Royal Pile Winchester, Virginia 22602 L"JI COUNTY of FREDERI(� " Department of Public tiVor 510/665-5o FAX: 540/674-01 July 10. 2007 RF: Site Plan Comments - Lantz Construction Office Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Knechtel: Upon review of the site plan received .June 15. 2007, from Potesta & Associates. We offer the following comments: 1. Replace the current silt fence with wire supported silt fence. as Frederick County does not allow the use of a silt fence without wire support. 2. Provide the standard MS-19 Erosion and Sediment Control notes on the site plan. Because these comments are minor, .we recommend approval of the subject project. All remaining comments shall be addressed prior to the Land Disturbance Permit Application. Please submit one set of the revised plan for our records. Sincerely. ,- - oe C. Wilder Deputy Director JCN\I/mlr cc: Planning and Development File CADocoments and SettinVANIRUNly Docoments\Herim FormatskiN innr cnmmentsU.,,\;\"I"7,('O�'Sl-R�'C-rl0\.�cpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 c � NEa ERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 30, 2007 Mr. K. Joe Knechtel Potesta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Second Review Comments for SP#49-07; Lantz Construction Property Identification Number (PIN): 64F-1-3 Dear Joe: Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted. This site plan is denied until the issues in this letter, as well as all issues of the other review agencies, have been adequately addressed. Please review Staff s comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern. Review Comments: I . Special Limited Power of Attorney Form. The Power of Attorney form was not attached to the second submission. 2. Future Parking. On sheet 4, show the spaces for the future parking as indicated. 3. Screening Fence. Label the screening fence as being six feet and extend the fence along the rear of the storage area. 4. Interior Parking. Revise the interior landscaping calculation as indicated on sheet 7. After you have revised the site plan, please resubmit two copies so that I may verify the information contained on the plan. I will need all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for approval. Comment sheets are required from the following agencies: the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Frederick County Inspections Department, the Frederick County Engineer, the Frederick County Fire Marshal, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Airport Authority. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Sincerely, C*X�' /'_ Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner cc: LCCW, LLC, 600 Airport Road, Winchester, VA 22602 CEP/bad Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - «inchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • Engineers and Environmental Consultants POTESTA508 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, Virginia 22602 - (540) 450-0180; www.potesta.com July 25, 2007 Ms. Candice E. Perkins, Planner I1 Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RE: Response to Site Plan Review Comments — Lantz C011St1-L1Ct1o11 — SP#49-07 Site Development Plan 111 Frederick COL111ty, Virginia Project No. 0103-07-0107 Dear Ms. Perkins: Below are remarks addressing the comments, listed by item number, from your June 25, 2007 review. Item 1 - Special Limited Power o/'Attoi-iiey Form. Please liarve the property owner sign the Special Limited Power of Attor!!ey Form prior to.Jitrther review or approval. This form should be 1lotalYZed and completed to gl'allt the applicant (,oll) with authol'iZation to represeiiI them lbl- this site plan. • A Spccial Limited Power of Attorney Form has been signed and attached. Item 2 - Phases. 011 the coversheet, break the development into Phase 1 and Phase 11 instead of cla7'ent and.%ittiwe. • The cover sheet and all relerenecs to current mid future have been changed to Phase I and Phase II. Item 3 - Hei ,ht. Provide the actual height of *the proposed sh•uctlu-e. • The proposed building actual height of 36' AGL has been added to plans on cover and sheet 4. The storage building height has been added as well. Item d - Adtobdiig, Pi -ties. 011 sheet 4, p1'ovide the Zoning alld use oJall ( oilli properties; also all adjoining properties across the road need to be provided. POTESTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Charleston, West Virginia • Morgantown, West Virginia • Winchester, Virginia 0 • Ms. Candice Perkins July 25, 2007 Page 2 • All adjoining properties adjacent and across the road have been added and they all show the current zoning and use. Item S - Aviation Drive. Provide the speed limit and location of any entrances within 200 feet. • The speed limit of 25mph has been added to the plan views. The entrance across the Cul-de-sac is also depicted. Item 6 - Future Parking. On sheet 4, for the future parking/phase II areas, shoii, all parking spaces and shade them to indicate that they will be constructed at a later time. • All Phase II areas and parking spaces have been shaded on sheet 4. The legend has bCCil updated as well. Item 7 - Screening Fence. Label the screening fence cis board -on -board and modiJf the location as indicated on sheel 4. • The screening fence has been labeled as board -on -board and the location has been modified on sheet 4. Item 8 - Future Storage Buildln,. Indicate hoii, the /uture building ii,ill be accessed. • We have indicated on all plan views how the future storage building will be accessed. Item 9 - Parking Space Totals. The tivo office buildings tivill require a total of'47 parking spaces; only 43 are accounted for on the plan. • 49 parking spaces were proposed. Thcre are six Phase II spaces at the south end of the parking area which are easily missed. These six spaces will now be included in the Phase I CORStRICtioil. Item 10 - Parking Setbacks. The Hl zoning district requires a 25 JOot parking setback off of roads. • One parking space has been removed from the parking perimeter, therefore, I-eilloving the portion OI the parking perimeter that does not mcet the 25' Setback. ,JOTESTA C� Ms. Candice Perkins July 25, 2007 Page 3 Item 11 - Heclkes. On the landscaping plan, evergreen hedges need to be provided as indicated. • Screening evergreen hedges have been added to sheet 7. Item 12 - Impervious Area. Ensure that the impervious area on sheet 7 accounts for all paved and gravel areas. • Impervious areas on the cover and sheet 7 have been revised to include a gravel storage lot. The perimeter shade tree calculation has been revised to show the existing tree credits. Item 13 - Interior Parking. The interior parking oil the landscaping plan accounts_Jor 73 parking spaces and there are only 43 shown. • The landscaping calCUlations have been reworded to be made clearer. The Phase II parking total oI'48 spaces is the total for the whole site. Item 14 - Lighting% Provide a detail for the wall pack lighting oil sheet D4. • A full cutoff (shielded) wall mounted light detail has been added to sheet D4. Item 15 - Dumpster Location. Provide a chimpster location oil the site plan. Y' the chanpster will be locatecl within the gravel storage area, a concrete pad needs to be provided. • A dumpster pad has been indicated inside the board -on -board screening fence with it own gate on plan views. A concrete pad has been provided and a detail added to sheet D4. Item 16 - Signage. If any.Ji•eestanding signage is proposed, it neecls to be provided oil the plan. The sign requirements.Jor the HI district need to be provided cis well. • Freestanding sign Is proposed and shall be located on the north side of the entrance. Its location] has been depleted on the plan and Its size will be Under 100 square feet and less than 15' in height. JPOTESTA • Ms. Candice Perkins July 25, 2007 Page 4 If you have any questions, or need any further information, please contact me. Sincerely, POTESTA & ASSOCIATES, INC. K. Joe Knechtel, P.E. Branch Manager KJK/doh Attachments ,JOTESTA �'POTESTA TRANSMITTAL LETTER 508 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 • Phone: (540) 450-0180 • Fax: (540) 450.0182 To: Ms. Candice Perkins Frederick Co. Dept. of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Sent Via: Mail 0 Hand Carried Federal Express Other: Date: June 15, 2007 Project No.: 0103-07-0107 United Parcel Service Quantity Description 1 Site Plan Application - Lantz Construction Commercial Site Development Plan I Submittal fee (check) for $2,098.36 - Lantz Construction Commercial Site Develo lnlent Plan I Request for Site Plan Comments - Lantz Construction Commercial Site Development Plan 1 SWM Narrative - Lantz COI1SIrnCtioll Commercial Site Development Plan 2 Full sets of Site Plan - Lantz ConSti-uCtion Commercial Site Development Plan Remarks: By: Danielle (Dana) O. Harmon c: A& r-l� Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 Mr. K. Joe Knechtel Potesta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: First Review Comments for SP#49-07; Lantz Construction Property Identification Number (PIN): 64F-1-3 Dear Joe: Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted. This site plan is denied until the issues in this letter, as well as all issues of the other review agencies, have been adequately addressed. Please review Staff's comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern. Review Comments: I . Special Limited Power of Attorney Form. Please have the property owner sign the attached Special Limited Power of Attorney Form prior to further review or approval. This form should be notarized and completed to grant the applicant (you) with authorization to represent them for this site plan. 2. Phases. On the coversheet, break the development into Phase I and Phase II instead of current and future. 3. Hei ht. Provide the actual height of the proposed structure. 4. Adjoining Properties. On sheet 4, provide the zoning and use of all adjoining properties; also all adjoining properties across the road need to be provided. 5. Aviation Drive. Provide the speed limit and location of any entrances within 200 feet. 6. Future Parking. On sheet 4, for the future parking/phase II areas, show all parking spaces and shade them to indicate that they will be constructed at a later time. 7. Screenine Fence. Label the screening fence as -board -on board and modify the location as indicated on sheet 4. 8. Future Storage Buildine. Indicate how the future building will be accessed. 9. Parking Space Totals. The two office buildings will require a total of 47 parking spaces; only 43 are accounted for on the plan. 10. Parking Setbacks. The M I zoning district requires a 25 foot parking setback off of roads. 11. Hedges. On the landscaping plan, evergreen hedges need to be provided as indicated. 12. Impervious Area. Ensure that the impervious area on sheet 7 accounts for all paved and gravel areas. 13. Interior Parking. The interior parking on the landscaping plan accounts for 75 parking spaces and there are only 43 shown. 14. Lightine. Provide a detail for the wall pack lighting on sheet D4. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I Mr. K. Joe Knechtel • Potesta & Associates, Inc. RE: Site Plan 1149-07 .Tune 25, 2007 Page 2 15. Dumpster Location. Provide a dUnlpSter location on the site plan. If the dumpster Nvill be located within the gravel storage area, a concrete pad needs to be provided. 16. Sifnage. If any freestanding signage is proposed, it needs to be provided on the plan. The sign requirements for the M 1 district need to be provided as well. After you have revised the site plan, please resubmit two copies so that I may verify the information contained on the plan. 1 will need all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for approval. Comment sheets are required from the following agencies: the Virginia Depan-tment of Transportation, the Frederick County Inspections Department, the Frederick County Engineer, the Fi-eclerick County Fire Allarshal, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Airport A uthoi-ity. Do not hesitate to contact me if yOU have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II cc: LCCW, LLC, 600 Airport Road, Winchester, VA 22602 CEP/bad Attachments • • SITE PLAN APPLICATION Department of Planning and Development Use o'nly./ Date application received: �� O Application # 7 ,s,— 0 2 Fees received: 'tad %g j� Initials: 1. Project Title: Lantz Construction Commercial Site Development Plan 2. Location of Property Aviation Drive (street address) Winchester, Virginia 22602 3. Property Owner: LCCW, LLC Address: 600 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone: 5,10-665-0130 4. Applicant/Agent Potesta & Associates, Inc. Address 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone: 540-4so-0180 5. Designer: Potesta & Associates, Inc. Address: 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone: 540-450-0180 Contact: K. Joe Knechtel 6a. Is this a standard or 'minor' site plan? 6b. Is this an original or revised site plan? 7a. Total acreage of parcel to be developed: 7b. Total acreage of parcel: Property Information: Property Identification Number: Current Zoning: Present Use: Proposed Use: Adjoining Property Use(s) Adjoining Property Identification Number(s) Magisterial District(s) Standard x Original X 2.9918 acres 2.9918 acres 64G-1-2, 64-A-39, 64F-1-4 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 submission of my site plan. ) Signature: - Date: /.5 6 • Request For Site Plan Comments Department of Planning and Development Mail to: Department of Planning and Development Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 Hanel deliver to: 107 N. Kent Street North Building, 2"' Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5651 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number: Potesta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 540-450-0180 Name of development and/or description of the request: Lantz Construction Commercial site Development Plan Location of property: The Property is a 2.99 acre parcel (TMII 64F 1 3) along Aviation Drive in Frederick County, Virginia Planning and Development's Comments: Planning and Development use only Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Signature and Date _ Signature and Date (revis Date revision received Incomplete Date reviewed 15 Date approved • • Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT M EM YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE MTIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIIviE OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPRO VAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMF.NYSAS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TDgF- rnie Mirk Susan Eric Mike Kevin John Lauren COMMENTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date &; Time): P5. D —U U:\Pam\Common\Document Approval Form.wpd =POTESTA To: Ms. Candice Perkins TRANSMITTAL LETTER 508 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 • Phone: (540) 450-0180 • Fax: (540) 450-0182 Date: Frederick Co. Dept. of Planning & Development Project No.: 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Sent Via: Tail �X Hand Carried 0 Federal Express ❑ Other: July 26, 2007 0103-07-0107 United Parcel Service Quantity Description Revised Site Plan per comments dated June 25, 2007 for Lantz Construction Companyof Winchester, Inc. Response to Site Plan Review Comments dated June 25, 2007 for Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, Inc. 1 Revised Stormwater Management and Engineering Calculations Brief per comments dated June 25, 2007 for Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, Inc. Remarks: By: Danielle (Dana) O. Harmon JUL 2 6 ui c: u u 0 F r u STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS BRIEF Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, LLC Site Development Lot #3 Aviation Drive, Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Prepared . f b Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, LLC 600 Airport Road, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Prepared by: Potesta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike ' Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone: (540) 450-0180 Fax: (540) 450-0182 C-Mail: potesta@potesta.com ;Jy ''T`I U! �f Pi ojJect No. 0103-07-0107$ July 24, 2007 No. 0329G0 b�/(_ 7 '(This document contains 7pages, phis a11endi {%-s ti �� � SIONAL v� F n �POTESTA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2.0 PRE and POST -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER RUNOFF........................................1 2.1 PRE -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER RUNOFF..............................................2 2.2 POST -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER RUNOFF...........................................2 2.3 ROADSIDE DRAINAGE DITCI-I..........................................................................4 2.4 NORTH AND SOUTH SWALES...........................................................................4 2.5 15", 21 ", AND 30" EXISTING CULVERTS.........................................................4 2.6 CURB -CUTS AND RIP -RAP SPILLWAYS..........................................................5 APPENDICES Pre and Post -Development Drainage Areas............................................................... APPENDIX A Hydrologic Soils Determination and Engineering Calculations ................................ APPENDIX B S\Vi%4 and Engineering Calc E3ricf for Lantz Construction (0103-07-0107), July 24, 2007 ' STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING ' CALCULATIONS BRIEI+ Lestef- & Mowery Pharmacy Site Development 20 South Street, Fork Magisterial District ' Town of'Trout Royal, Virginia ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, Inc. (LANTZ) is proposing to move its existing facility at 600 Airport Road to all llllllllpl'oVed 2.99 acre parcel #3 (ID# 64F 1 3) in Section 1 of Aviation Business Park, on Aviation Drive in Frederick County, Virginia. The general concept for the ' proposed development of the Site inCludes collstrLlCti011 of a commercial office building and storage building; associated off street parking, 0L1td00r storage area, and a Ilew entrance to the development from Airport Road meeting Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements. The site is currently wooded. The proposed development will be designed so that the post -development Storlllwater I11110ff will flow to the CLI1'b-cuts in the perimeter of the parking area to a roadside drainage ditch along Aviation Drive and to two swales oil the north and south boundaries of the ' property. These swales will convey this post -development flow through culverts passing under Aviation Drive and to swales leading t0 a "regional" Storinwater Management (SWM) Facility. POTESTA understands front the Frederick County Public Works, that this "regional" SWM facility ' has been designed to handle the increase in stornlwater runoff rates front development at this site and surrounding the business -park, and will not require onsite detention to reduce the post - development peak runoff rate to pre -development levels. As instructed front Frederick County ' Public Works, POTESTA designed site drainage so runoff would flow to and safely pass through adequate channels without erosion. ' This calCUlatlon brief will summarize the engineeriIlg used to determine the stol'Inwater drainage and SWM of the proposed site (subject site). The storinwater runoff in post -development condition for the subject site has been designed for not only proposed development of this site, but also possible ' development in the future. u 2.0 PRE and POST -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER RUNOFF The purpose of this section IS t0 determine the pre and post-dcvelopment stoI'Inwater I'Lllloff patterns and rates for 2 and 10-year storm events for the subject site using the Rational Method. The soils contained in this site were determined to be a combination of Weikert-Bcrks Silt Loam (41B and 41E). The hydrologic soil group NRCS classification is "C/D" (See Appendix A). SWM and Engineering Calc Brief for Lantz Construction (0103-07-0107), July 24, 2007 Page I ' 2.1 PRE -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER RUNOFF ' In the pre -development condition, this site is heavily wooded and contains two drainage areas totaling 3.45 acres. Minimal offslte stormwater drams onto the east portion (real') Of site, and will immediately flow to the Swales that border the SUbject Site to the noI'th and SOLIth, therefore not ' effecting drainage to the proposed developed areas. The pre -development conditions of the total sites drainage areas consist of 82% Woods and 1 1 % grass, and 6.7% impervious. The 2 and I0-year storm peak runoff determined using the Rational Method for the total site is 3.70cfs. The delineation ' of each drainage area and its outfall is depicted on POTESTA drawing "Pre -Development Runoff" found in Appendix B. The Rational Method calculations are found in Appendix B. POTESTA assumed, for conservative engineering purposes, that rainfall intensity for each drainage area would ' be the shortest allowed, 5 minutes, therefore giving the highest now rate. A swnmary of the pre - development conditions can be found below. L I I *Rainfall Peak Drainage Conditions Area, Storm Intensity, Intensity, Runoff, Outfall Area (acres) (acres) Frequency cfs DA-1 Impervious 0.12 0.9 Gravel 0.02 0.24 0.6 0.2 2-Year 5.3 1.70 North Grass 1.63 0.1 10-year 6.8 2.19 Swale Woods Total C,,. = 0.16 DA-2 Impervious 0.09 0.9 Gravel 0.002 0.6 2-year 5.3 1.22 South Grass 0.148 0.2 10-year 6.8 1.57 Swale Woods 1.2 0.1 Total Total = Total = 2.92 3.45 3.70 `Note = Assumed 5 minutes time of concentration. Source: VDOT Rainfall Intensity Curve for Frederick County Virginia. 2.2 POST -DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER RUNOFF The proposed grading of the site was designed so that the post -development stormwater runoff will flow to either the roadside drainage ditch and north Swale which leads to a 30" CMP culvert passing beneath Aviation Drive to a drainage swale, or to the south Swale and 21" CMP culvert passing beneath the cul-de-sac. As POTESTA understands all drainage leads to a regional SWM facility capable of handling the increase in post -development flow and eventually to Buffalo Lick Run. The seven post -development drainage areas total 3.45 acres and have been designed for possible Phase II development at the subject site. The Phase I and Phase II post -development conditions of the total site consist of 33% impervious (rooftop, sidewalks and pavement), 26% gravel, 24% grass, and 16% grass. The 10-year storm peak runoff for the total site is 12.33efs. The delineation of each drainage area and its outfall is depicted on POTESTA drawing "Post -Development RunofP' found in SWM and Engineering Calc Brief for Lantz Construction (0103-07-0107), July 24, 2007 Page 2 Appendix B. The Rational Method calculations are found in Appendix B. Again, POTESTA assumed, for conservative engineering purposes, that rainfall intensity for each drainage area would be the shortest allowed, 5 minutes. A Sllll Mary of the pre -development conditions can be folmd below. Rainfall Peak Drainage b Conditiolis Area ' C-value Storm Intensity, Runoff, Outfall Area (acres) I+l egllency i=in/Ilr) Q= cfs DA-North Impervious 0.09 0.9 Swale Gravel 0.31 0.6 2-year 5.3 1.79 North (future) Grass 0.17 0.2 10-year 6.8 2.30 Swale Woods 0.37 0.1 Total 1.15 C,,. = 0.36 DA-South Impervious 0.07 0.9 Swale Gravel 0.58 0.6 2-Year 5.3 2.49 South Grass 0.25 0.2 10-year 6.8 3.19 Swale Woods 0.08 0.1 Total 0.98 C„ = 0.48 DA-Curb cut I1111)el•V1OLIS 0.26 0.9 Future Future Gravel 0.6 2-year 5.3 1.24 Curb -cut to Grass p 2 10-year 6.8 1.59 North Woods 0.1 Swale Total 0.26 C„. = 0.9 DA- InlperviouS 0.17 0.9 Roadside Gravel 0.02 0.6 2-Year 5.3 1.27 DA-South Ditch Grass 0.31 0.2 10-year 6.8 1.63 Curb-cut/at Woods 0.10 0.1 Entrance Total 0.60 C„ • = 0.4 DA-South Impervious 0.10 0.9 curb-cut/at Gravel 0.6 2-year 5.3 0.50 Entrance Grass 0.03 0.2 10-year 6.8 0.65 South Woods 0.1 Swale Total 0.13 C„. = 0.74 DA-North InlperviouS 0.27 0.9 curb-cut/at Gravel 0.6 r .3 1. DA-South Entrance Grass 0.05 0.2 1-year O-Yc 6.8 6 1.72 Curb-cut/at Woods 01 Entrance Total 0.32 C„ . = 0.79 DA-curb- Impervious 0.22 0.9 cut to Gravel 0.6 2-year 5.3 1.05 DA-South roadside Grass 0.2 10-year 6.8 1.35 Curb-cut/at ditch Woods 0.1 Entrance Total 0.22 C,y - 0.90 9.61 Total = 12.33 SWM and Engineering Calc Brief for Lantz Construction (0103-07-0107), July 24, 2007 Page 3 '''Note = Assumed 5 minutes time of concentration. Source: VDOT Rainfall Intensity Curve for Frederick County Virginia. 2.3 ROADSIDE DRAINAGE DITCH The roadside drainage ditch was analyzed to determine if it can safely convey a stormwater runoff front a 10-year event fi-om the proposed development and fi-0111 C1'OW11-tO-SI1Ol1lder Of Aviation Drive. It was determined that drainage areas, "DA-curb-cut to roadside ditch", "DA-North curb-cut/at Entrance", and "DA-Roadside Ditch" drain to this ditch, with a combined 10-year stormwater runoff of flow of 4.58efs. The ditch is considered a triangular ditch with 14:1 and 2.5:1 side slopes and 0.6% longitudinal slope. It was determined that this ditch can safely carry this flow with a normal depth of 0.57 feet giving over 0.5 feet of freeboard, and a non -erosive velocity. See FlowMaster by Haested software printout in Appendix C for details. 2.4 NORTH AND SOUTH SNVALES The north and south swales were analyzed to determine if they will safely convey the 10-year post -development stormwater runoff from the subject site as well as from adjacent sites. See FlowMaster by Haested software printout and maps in Appendix C for details for the following analysis. The North Swale receives runoff fi-0111 the adjacent site to the north as well as proposed post -development runoff fi•0111 the subject site. The adjacent site is developed and is considered to be light industrial with a C value of 0.8. The area is estimated to be 0.9 acres. Using a conservative rainfall intensity of 6.8 in./hr., the expected 10-year runoff front this adjacent site is estimated to be 4.9cfs. The subject site's influence will be fi•om drainage areas, "DA-North Swale (future)" and "DA-Curb Cut Future" with a combined estimated 10-year stormwater runoff rate Of 3.89cfs. The North Swale was considered a triangular ditch with a 4.3% slope. This swale is estimated to safely convey a 10-year storm of 8.79cfs at non -erosive velocities. The South Swale receives runoff from an estimated 1.9 acres from the adjacent site to the south as well as proposed post -development runoff from the subject site. The adjacent site is undeveloped, but was considered to be light industrial with a C value Of 0.8. Using a conservative rainfall intensity of 6.8 in./hr. the expected 10 year runoff from this adjacent site is estimated to be 10.3efs. The subject site's influence will be from drainage areas, "DA-South Swale" and "DA-South Curb- cut/at Entrance" with a combined estimated 10-year stormwater runoff rate of 3.86cfs. The South Swale was considered a triangular ditch with a 29% slope. This Swale is estimated to safely convey a 10-year storm of 14.2cfs at non -erosive velocities. 2.5 15", 21", AND 30" EXISTING CULVERTS The existing 15" RCP culvert is located in the north swale upstream Of the 30" CMP culvert which Conveys stormwater under Aviation Drive t0 an adegLiate channel, which is part Of the Airport SwM and Engineering Calc Brief for Lantz Construction (0103-07-0107), July 24, 2007 Page 4 Business Park regional SWM system. POTCSTA estimates that the 15" culvert receives the same stormwater runoff, 8.79cfs, as analyzed for the North Swale (see above). The culvert has a 0.9% slope and was analyzed with tailwater condition due to the headwater from the existing 30" CMP downstream. The culvert is estimated to have sufficient headwall therefore safely conveying stormwater runoff. The 30" CMP located downstream is estimated to receive stormwater runoff from a larger portion of the adjacent property to the north than the 15" RCP. It is estimated that this area is 2 acres and considered light industrial. The estimated 10-year stormwater runoff is 10.9 cfs. The estimated runoff from the subject site will be from drainages areas "DA-North Swale (future)", "DA-Curb cut Future", "DA-Roadside Ditch", "DA-North CLlrb-cut/at Entrance", and "DA-Curb-Cult to roadside ditch" and will be 8.47efs for a combined flow of 19.37cfs. The comlRlted headwall is 694.63 is 3.4 feet less than the allowable headwall. The 2 1 " CMP located in the South Swale conveys stormwater under the cul-de-sac to an adequate channel of the regional SWM system. This culvert receives the same stormwater flow of 14.2cfs as used in the analysis of the South Swale. The calculated headwater elevation is 696.68 feet, which is 3.3 feet below allowable headwater elevation, therefore sufficiently sized for the post development flows. 2.6 CURB -CUTS AND RIP -RAP SPILLWAYS The proposed site is designed using four 4 foot wide curb -cuts (three current developments and one future) to convey the stormwater runoff from the proposed impervious rooftop and parking surfaces. Each curb -cut was designed in sag conditions and spill into rip -rap spillways which lead to adequate channels. The curb -cuts and rip -rap spillways are depicted on the "Post Development Runoff' drawing found in appendix B. Each curb -cut was analyzed to verify that it could safely pass the I O-year stormwater runoff WithOLlt overtopping and that the "spread" was Within manageable limits, (i.e. Not more than half lane width). All curb -cuts designs were found to be sufficient. The rip -rap was sized to handle the expected velocity. Ds() of 4" was found to be sufficient. See Appendix C for detailed printouts. SWM and Engineering Cale Brief for Lantz Construction (0103-07-0107), July 24, 2007 Page 5 F F u F I F I 1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS BRIEF Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, LLC Site Development Lot #3 Aviation Drive, Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Prepared. for: Lantz Construction Company of Winchester, LLC 600 Airport Road, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Prepared by: Potesta & Associates, Inc. 508 Front Royal Pike Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone: (540) 450-0180 Tax: (540) 450-0182 F-Mail: potesta@potesta.com Project No. 0103-07-0107 July 24, 2007 (This document contains 7 pages, phis appen(fices.) 7 C 1 H I I p 7 Hydrologic Soil Group —Frederick County, Virginia N Meters A 0 15 30 60 90 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.0 6/8/2007 iM Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M s Hydrologic Soil Group —Frederick County, Virginia MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) ti Local Roads Area of Interest (AOI) Other Roads Soils [] Soil Map Units Soil Ratings 0 A 0 A/D IIM B M B/D Q C j CID 0 D Not rated or not available Political Features Municipalities 0 Cities FM Urban Areas Water Features ® Oceans r . Streams and Canals Transportation ,4+ Rails Roads �v Interstate Highvrays N US Routes State Highways USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey MAP INFORMATION Original soil survey map sheets were prepared at publication scale. Viewing scale and printing scale, however, may vary from the original. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for proper map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: httpJ/websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Frederick County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 3, Jul 5, 2006 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 3/24/1997; 4/2/1997 The orthopholo or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 6/8/2007 Page 2 of 4 k u I 11 P Hydrologic Soil Group —Frederick County, Virginia Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit —'Frederick County; Virginia .Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres In AOl Percent of AOI 416 Weikert-Berks channery C/D 2.3 78.6% slit foams, 2 to 7 percent slopes 41E Weikert-Berks channery C/D 0.6 21.4% silt foams, 25 to 65 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) Description 2.91 100.0% Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. I USDA Natural Resources Q1 Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/8/2007 Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Frederick County, Virginia Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff., None Specified Tie -break Rule: Lower Natural Resources Web Sol[ Survey 2.0 6/8/2007 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 I .. k AREA DA-1 \\ \ WILSONRAROP LLC A=2.01 AC .n�... t-O.f 0.12 AC -'\ DO 9.e RC 47 I 1 ( ) \ \ O9 9s1 PC e.7 c r... (C-0.2) f.I3 "1 CC �..� (C.OJ) 1.fI AC 772 \ Ic::Io.1f :.c1 c i LOT s \W INST. / 07-8155 \2►. > 2.9918 AC 1 TM 64i-1-5 \ /t \ 771 AREA DA 2 A=1.44 AC n (c.o.3) o.118 A (e-0.1) 1.16 / I I (C-o. 0.00 AC 1 1 { AC 0.1 _ s — R-7e 00 1 � 101 HORIZON HOLDINGS, LLC Lor AN57 / 04-23835 DO 69J PC 117 OP"MIC SCAL9 f0 Sf f0 ff WPPM wrno.cc MAPPING GENERATED BY FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING, PC IN MARCH AND APRIL. 2007 g TRIAD CAQK YWNO, - r� %L 0Ar-1--d-�---� .10MM.G: Yr AC) ^ (3.e7 28 "1 PO cuRRrMr USE. CCWar(R"JAL j L710AVE17bNo 1 4 i pp FUTURE ROADSIDE DITCH . ; I A=0.62 AC 1; 1 Iw r.r•I... (C-0.1) 0.17 AC 0 r. ••I (C. 0.1) 0.01 AC I I' 0.10 AC t.-O.IO I I iI j;� + r 1 1 i fit' L-2 Lve 'A}. t AREA ROADSIDE DITCH A=0.65 AC 1w r.,.l... (C-o.1) 0.17 AC cnu (C-0.7) 0.4 4 Ac 044 A C.-0.38 AREA CURB -CUT TO ROADSIDE DITCH A=0.22 AC ,w r.r•1... (C-0.1) 0.31 AC c.-0.01 ALANS FAMILY LW'rD PARTAt177SMP TM W_'-e ZONWG: L1 (7A62 AC) OB 7e1 PC I2ee 06 826 PC 479 CL,RREA7 USE: YAGwr AREA NORTH CURB -CUT ENTRANCE A=0.32 AC 1m ::"1. - (CT 0.9) 0.17 AC Oro.. (c-O.1 0.00 Ac 1.. t., 0.31 Ac 0. - 0.7/ -- Y W \ ati is / AREA SOUTH, / CURB -CUT ENTR14`) -1 � �rNG III (4,2 AC) A=0.1 3 AC`RIST �I oz-I rose r • 1... (C - 0 .1) 0. tOUYdteN USE: VACANT Gnu (C-0.1) 0.03 AC \ To,.I 0.13 AC C••0.7A R J. CNAVES TAT eK-1-5 ZONINCI M7 (J.018 C9 rttsr i remx ss•. UT 1 C Lvx PROPERTY, LCC TY 84r-t-2 0N0. WI (1.7e AC) m "-Tel" De 03 PG Ill • O1TA:E / L.A7NT AYI4/S%*L b, A. "AREA DA-North Swale Future A=0.94 AC Iw r...lo.. (c-o.1) 0.01 At `_ 0r... (C-0.14) 0.17 AC 7 AC 1 -AREA-_ k-Nort vial \\ Cr.•.I (C-0.1) 0.3, AC (� To 1.1 0.14 AC =1.15 A C••O.JI ytp[�n/A - -r rYi - 0.bo AC \ MTL:Lr P4-A-30. (lc yRL L/P� Cr.•.I C-0.0) 0.34 AC \ 1Y 41-A-.7i 9W 7. ,.1 10 AC 101VW : YI (2.05 AC) 0.26 AC c.-0.14 \ \ / a 6Ie PU 143 11 i1. 0,14 AC / - DB 45 t Po647 Nd + \ ctkww URST LKNT LNDL'STVAtL Nor - - - �. TM 64F-1-3 \ RING M 1 (2.9918 AC) INST. / 07-8/55 \ CURRENT USE: VACANT \ AREA D -South .Swale �\ =0.98 A / I 0 u. -0.1) 0..3 Al e 01 ((c-0.1)) 0.00 C g -o.AI I / / c I c / f ` - j' -� I40.4lION NDODLNCS LLC IONNl -2AC) tNSrSr / oI58 -1427 55 De e65 PGu7 CURRENT USE., VACANT` ✓ /1 vwr / N-46eQ 13 E-s20C-1= aEY.-eod -sod Be GRAPHIC SCALE N is o0 /o Wpm .vvm.ee MAPPING GENERATED BY FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING, PC IN MARCH AND APRIL. 2007 Q Z� 04 O�QN U(NON oe = OL HZ }-> ZZ3OEY U0IYN Q LLJ 8<CL LLLLJ F- LLUU O LL GC ZLLH adOQQ Z > HOJ W F- OC pe 09 LUZaU >O:Ez iUw3 �~i3z3 dJt=/f Worksheet for Curb Cut In Sag -North Curb Cut/Entrance Flow Element: Solve For: Curb Inlet In Sag Spread Discharge 1.71 ft /a Gutter Width: 2.00 ft Gutter Cross Slope: 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope: 0.03 ft/ft Curb Opening Length: 4.00 ft Opening Height: 0.50 ft Curb Throat Type: Horizontal Local Depression: 0.00 in Local Depression Width: 0.00 ft Throat Incline Angle: 90.00 degrees 1 Spread: 7.58 ft Depth. 0.32 ft Gutter Depression: 0.10 ft Total Depression 0.10 ft Worksheet for Curb Cut In Sag - South Curb Cut'Entrance rotect Description Flow Element: Curb Inlet Ir; Sag y Solve For Spread �".A'13�A10.`I aliti Discharge 0.65 ft'/s Gutter Width: 2.00 ft Gutter Cross Slope: 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope: 0.03 ft/ft Curb Opening Length. 4.00 ft Opening Height: 0.50 ft Curb Throat Type: Horizontal Local Depression: 0.00 in Local Depression Width: 0.00 ft Throat Incline Angle: 90.00 ntdegrees Spread: 4.46 ft Depth: 0.22 ft Gutter Depression: 0.11 ft Total Depression: 0.11 ft Worksheet for Curb Cut In Sag - Future Parking Flow Element: Curb Inlet In Sag Solve For. Spread Discharge: IN 1.59 ft'/s Gutter Width: 2.00 ft Gutter Cross Slope: 008 ft/ft Road Cross Slope: 0.03 ft/ft Curb Opening Length: 4.00 ft Opening Height: 0.50 ft Curb Throat Type: Horizontal Local Depression: 0.00 in Local Depression Width: 0.00 ft Throat Incline Angle: 90.00 degrees Spread: 6.74 ft Depth: 0.30 ft Gutter Depression: 0.10 ft Total Depression: 0.10 ft Rip -Rap Waterway Design Design Discharge Mannings Eq. V=(1.49/n)((Rh^(2/3)'(s^(1/2)) V= fps Q=AV Mane s g's n Slopfrom Figure 8, WV Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook Slope - � �: d5U Wetted Perimeter depth slope base Area Hydraulic Radius WP= b+2'D(1+z^2)^0.5 ft d= tt z- z:1 b= ft A= b'D+z•D^2 Rh = A/wetted perimeter W P- ft A= ft^2 -'� Q= Cfs V= fps ' Worksheet for North Swale 1 Flow Element: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula ' Solve For: Normal Depth ' Roughness Coefficient: 0.045 Channel Slope: 0.04300 fVft Left Side Slope: 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) ' Right Side Slope: 16.00 ft/ft (H:V) Discharge 8.79 ft'/s ' ow Normal Depth: 0.58 ft Flow Area: 2.98 ft' Wetted Perimeter: 10.50 ft Top Width: 10.35 ft Critical Depth: 0.57 ft ' Critical Slope: 0.04577 ft/ft Velocity 2.95 ft/s Velocity Head: 0.14 ft ' Specific Energy: 0.71 ft Froude Number: 0.97 Type: Subcritical ' +TFlow Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft ' Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 ' Upstream Depth. 0.00 ft ' Profile Description: N/A ' Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: 0.00 fUs Upstream Velocity: 0.00 ft/s ' Normal Depth: 0.58 ft Critical Depth: 0.57 ft Channel Slope: 0.04300 ft/ft ' Critical Slope: 0.04577 f ift Worksheet for South Swale CJ�G .�.,SCnp iOn '�`` � � Y,ft "S�;:s: '.�'-��"+eR� . i���".��.i"�r"'f�'*K7rs-����.F"'S"s';,�• Flow E;ernent: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Roughness Coefficient: 0.045 Channel Slope. 0.02850 ft/ft Left Side Slope: 9.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope: 7.50 ft/ft (H:V) Discharge: 14.30 ft'/s !' r (, � .r-- et-v_ S?">r . �Py � W i.ji...• _�E...E a `l'2;yif.: Normal Depth: .' .a 0.77 •t S: f. ft Flow Area: 4.88 ft, Wetted Perimeter: 12.78 ft Top Width: 12.69 ft Critical Depth: 0.71 ft Critical Slope: 0.04199 ft/ft Velocity: 2.93 ft/s Velocity Head: 0.13 ft Specific Energy: 0,90 ft Froude Number: 0.83 Flow Type: Subcritical IRS Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number 0 atyOfi�Steps: ABiLCaiiiL`9LlFi. offing ...w,�jMy�.L'�•.iiiX.. Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft Profile Description: N/A Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: 0.00 ft/s Upstream Velocity: 0.00 fills Normal Depth. 0.77 ft Critical Depth: 0.71 ft Channel Slope: 0.02850 ft/ft Critical Slope: 0.04199 ft/ft Worksheet for Roadside Channel - Aviation Drive Flow Element Triangular Channe; Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Deoth Roughness Coefficient. 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.00650 ft/ft Left Side Slope: 14.20 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope: 2.50 ft/ft (H:V) Discharge: 4.63 ft'/s Normal Depth: 0.57 ft Flow Area. 2.70 ft: Wetted Perimeter: 9.63 ft Top Width: 9.50 ft Critical Depth: 0.45 ft Critical Slope: 0.02190 fUft Velocity 1.71 ft/s Velocity Head: 0.05 ft Specific Energy: 0.61 ft Froude Number: 0.57 Flow Type: Subcritical t ,. Downstream Depth: 0.00 R Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 Upstream Depth: 0.00 tt Profile Descripticn: N/A Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: 0.00 ft/s Upstream Velocity: 0.00 fVs Normal Depth: 0.57 ft Critical Depth: 0.45 ft Channel Slope: 0.00650 P✓ft Critical Slope: 0.02190 ft/ft Culvert Calculator Report ' 15" RCP at north pond Solve For: Headwater Elevation ' Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation 698.00 ft Headwater Depth/Height 2.58 Computed Headwater Elevr 696.63 ft Discharge 8.79 cfs ' Inlet Control HW Elev, 695.68 ft Tallwater Elevation 695.00 ft Outlet Control HW Elev. 696.63 ft Control Type Outlet Control ' Grades ' Upstream Invert Length 693.40 ft 36.31 ft Downstream Invert Constructed Slope 693.08 ft 0.008813 ft/ft Hydraulic Profile Profile PressureProfile Depth, Downstream 1.92 ft Slope Type N/A Normal Depth N/A ft Flow Regime N/A Critical Depth 1.15 ft ' Velocity Downstream 7.16 ft/s Critical Slope 0.016087 ft/ft Section Section Shape Circular Mannings Coefficient 0.013 ' Section Material Section Size Concrete 15 Inch Span Rise 1.25 ft Number Sections 1 1.25 ft ' Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. 696.63 ft Upstream Velocity Head 0.80 ft Ke 0.20 Entrance Loss 0.16 ft Inlet Control Properties ' Inlet Control HW Elev. 695.68 ft Flow Control Submerged Inlet Type Beveled ring, 33.7° bevels Area Full 1.2 ft2 K 0.00180 HDS 5 Chart 3 M 2.50000 HDS 5 Scale B ' C 0.02430 Equation Form 1 Y 0.83000 Title: Existing Culverts ]:\...\07-0107 - lantz\existing culverts.cvm Engineer: Project g ineer: KJKnechtel Potesta &Associates ' 06/14/07 07:40:22 PM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. CulvertMaster v3.0 [3.0004] 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Culvert Calculator Report 21" CMP Existing Solve For: Headwater Elevation Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation 700.00 ft Computed Headwater Elevi 696.68 ft Inlet Control HW Elev. 696.68 ft Outlet Control HW Elev. 696.66 ft Headwater Depth/Height Discharge Tailwater Elevation Control Type 1.61 14.20 cis 685.84 it Inlet Control Grades Upstream Invert Length 693.86 ft 154.09 ft Downstream Invert Constructed Slope 684.84 ft 0.058537 Wit Hydraulic Profile Profile Slope Type Flow Regime Velocity Downstream S2 Steep Supercritical 9.29 ft/s Depth, Downstream Normal Depth Critical Depth Critical Slope 1.06 It 1.06 ft 1.40 It 0.028657 ft/ft Section Section Shape Section Material Section Size Number Sections Circular CMP 21 Inch 1 Mannings Coefficient Span Rise 0.024 1.75 it 1.75 It Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. Ke 696.66 ft 0.90 Upstream Velocity Head Entrance Loss 0.74 ft 0.66 ft Inlet Control Properties Inlet Control HW Elev. Inlet Type K M C Y 696.68 ft Projecting 0.03400 1.50000 0.05530 0.54000 Flow Control Area Full HDS 5 Chart HDS 5 Scale Equation Form Submerged 2.4 ft2 2 3 1 1 Title: Existing Culverts Project Engineer: KJKnechtel j 07 0107 lantz\existing culverts.cvm Project & Associates CulvertMaster v3.0 i3.00041 06/14/07 07:43:42 PM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Culvert Calculator Report ' 30" CMP Existing Solve For: Headwater Elevation Culvert Summary Allowable HW Elevation 698.00 It Headwater Depth/Height 0.90 Computed Headwater Elev, 694.63 It Discharge 19.37 cfs ' Inlet Control HW Elev. 694.40 It Taiiwater Elevation 675.30 ft Outlet Control HW Elev. 694.63 It Control Type Entrance Control ' Grades ' Upstream Invert Length 692.39 It 122.36 It Downstream Invert 675.33 ft Constructed Slope 0.139425 ft/ft ' Hydraulic Profile Profile S2 Depth, Downstream 0.60 ft Slope Type Steep Normal Depth 0.60 ft Flow Regime Supercritical Critical Depth 1.49 ft Velocity Downstream 21.36 ft/s Critical Slope 0.006010 ft/ft Section Section Shape Circular Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Section Material Section Size Concrete 30 Inch Span 2.50 it Rise 2.50 It Number Sections 1 ' Outlet Control Properties Outlet Control HW Elev. 694.63 it Upstream Velocity Head 0.62 ft Ke 0.20 Entrance Loss 0.12 ft Inlet Control Properties ' Inlet Control HW Elev. 694.40 It Flow Control Unsubmerged Inlet Type Groove end projecting Area Full 4.9 ft2 K 0.00450 HDS 5 Chart 1 M 2.00000 HDS 5 Scale 3 ' C 0.03170 Equation Form 1 Y 0.69000 Title: Existing Culverts Project Engineer: KJKnechtel J:\...\07-0107 - lantz\existing cuiverts.cvm Potesta & Associates CulvertMaster v3.0 (3.0004) 06/14/07 08:04:25 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet for Curb Inlet In Sag - Curb Cut to Roadside Ditch 3 rgje .'e tlb st'aiid3ii j°tt Flow Element: Curb Inlet In Sag Solve For. Spread Discharge: 1.35 naffs Gutter Width: 2.00 ft Gutter Cross Slope: 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope: 0.05 ft/ft Curb Opening Length: 4.00 ft Opening Height: 0.50 ft Curb Throat Type: Horizontal Local Depression: 0.00 in Local Depression Width: 0.00 ft Throat Incline Angle: 90.00 degrees Spread: ,: ft 3.78 Depth: 0.25 ft Gutter Depression: 0.06 ft Total Depression: 0.06 ft ' Purpose To determine the pre and post development runoff from site Method: Used Rational method to determine stormwater runoff rates. Pre development ' estimated two drainage areas, and post development estimated 7 drainage areas. Q=CIA C Area Q2 Q10 Condition C Area Q2 Q10 'Condition Pre Development 1 DA-1 Impervious 0.9 0.12 ' Gravel 0.6 0.02 Grass 0.2 0.24 Woods 0.1 1.63 ' Total 2.01 C weighted 0.16 i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1.70 2.19 ' i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 2 DA-2 Impervious 0.9 0.09 ' Gravel 0.6 0.002 Grass 0.2 0.148 Woods 0.1 1.2 ' Total 1.44 C weighted 0.16 i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1.22 1.57 cfs ' i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 TOTAL 2 & 10 yr 2.92 3.76 cfs Condition C Area Q2 Q10 Condition C Area Q2 Q10 Post Development Total Area 3.45 acres 1 DA-North Swale DA-North Swale Future Impervious 0.9 Impervious 0.9 0.09 ' Gravel 0.6 0.35 Gravel 0.6 0.31 Grass 0.2 0.3 Grass 0.2 0.17 Woods 0.1 0.5 Woods 0.1 0.37 Total 1.15 Total 0.94 �> C weighted 0.28 C weighted 0.36 ' i=in/hr 10yr i=in/hr 2yr 6.80 5.30 1.70 2.18 cfs i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1.79 2.30 cfs i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 cfs 1a DA-Parking Curb Cut Future Impervious 0.9 0.26 ' Gravel 0.6 Grass 0.2 ' Woods 0.1 Total 0.26 C weighted 0.90 i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1.24 1.59 cfs ' i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 2 DA-South Swale Same Impervious 0.9 0.07 Gravel 0.6 0.58 Grass 0.2 0.25 Woods 0.1 0.08 ' Total 0.98 C weighted 0.48 i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 2.49 3.19 cfs 2.49 3.19 cfs ' i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 3 DA-Roadside Impervious Ditch 0.9 0.17 Gravel 0.6 0.02 Grass 0.2 0.31 ' Woods 0.1 0.15 Total 0.65 C weighted 0.37 i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1.27 1.63 cfs i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 4 DA-South Curb-Cut/Entrance ' Impervious 0.9 0.10 Gravel 0.6 Grass 0.2 `M 0.0 3 ' Woods 0.1 Total D-443 C weighted 0-.-700,?-( 0,51 0, 6 s, ' i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 -G752 0.67 cfs i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 5 DA-North Curb-Cut/Entrance ' Impervious 0.9 D-25 Gravel 0.6 Grass 0.2 Ga6b,a4 ' Woods 0.1 Total D,31-0,3� ' C weighted i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1-25 4-;&o cfs i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 I ' 6 DA-Curb-Cu to Roadside Ditch Impervious 0.9 0.22 Gravel 0.6 Grass 0.2 ' Woods 0.1 Total 0.22 C weighted 0.90 ' i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 1.05 1.35 cfs i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 ' TOTAL 2 & 10 yr 8.27 10.61 cfs ' Total Area 3.45 acres DA-Ditch Future Impervious 0.9 0.17 Gravel 0.6 0.02 Grass 0.2 0.31 Woods 0.1 0.1 Total 0.60 C weighted 0.40 i=in/hr 10yr 6.80 i=in/hr 2yr 5.30 Same Same Same 1.27 1.63 cfs 0.52 0.67 cfs 1.25 1.60 cfs 1.05 1.35 cfs TOTAL 2 & 10 yr 9.61 12.33 cfs Total Area 3.45 acres � 1 � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I Source: VDOT 1992 Plate 5-11 I V-21 1992 TABLE 5-2 VALUES OF RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C) FOR RATIONAL FORMULA Land Use C Land Use C Business: Lawns: ' Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 Sandy soil, flat, 2% 0.05-0.10 Neighborhood areas 0.50-0.70 Sandy soil, average, 2-7% 0.10-0.15 Sandy soil, steep, 7% 0.15-0.20 ' . • • Heavy soil, flat, 2% 0.13-0.17 . Heavy soil average, Source: 2-7% 0.18-0.22 O, 2 • Heavy soil, steep, 7% 0.25-0.35 Residential: Agricultural land: Single-family areas 0.30-0.50 Bare packed soil Multi units, detached 0.40-0.60 * Smooth 0.30-0.60 Multi units, attached 0.60-0.75 * Rough 0.20-0.50 Suburban 0.25-0.40 Cultivated rows * Heavy soil, no crop 0.30-0.60 . * Heavy soil, with crop 0.20-0.50 * Sandy soil, no crop 0.20-0.40 • * Sandy soil, with crop 0.10-0.25 Pasture • * Heavy soil 0.15-0.45 . * Sandy soil 0.05-0.25 ' Woodlands 0.05-0.25 0.1 Industrial: Streets: .Light areas 0.50-0.80 Asphaltic 0.70-0.95 O; Heavy areas 0.60-0.90 Concrete 0.80-0.95 • • Brick 0.70-0.85 Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25' Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Playgrounds 0.20-0.35 Drives and walks 0.75-0.85 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 Roofs 0.75-0.95 Note:' The designer must use judgement to select the appropriate "C" value within the ' range. 'Generally, larger areas with permeable soils, flat slopes and dense vegetation should have the lowest C values. Smaller areas with dense soils, moderate to steep slopes, and sparse gegetatiori should be assigned the highest C values. - American Society of Civil Engineers I V-29 please note: The site plans associated with this Tile are located in the File room.