Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutValley Industrial Park (Valley Fertilizer MDP) Stonewall - Backfile (2)o- k 16 VALL�y l N,bu5721AL P9, SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST The application is not complete if the following are not present: Submission Packaae AN-90 1. Two sets of comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; VDOT City of Winchester Co. San. Auth. 19-ly Co. Hlth. Dept. la-l� Inspections Dept. Parks & Rec. %© Fire Marshall Local Fire Company k 2. 2 copies of the subdivision application J �ei?iScd TeCEc%)eC 3. 15 copies of the plan on a single sheet �Z�L(og0 4. 1 reproducible copy of the plan (if required) 5. a 35mm. slide of the plan * One copy of the application and comment sheets, three copies of the plan and the marked plans from the review agencies should be enclosed in a package which will be forwarded to the County Engineer. TRACKING DATE -1 / AO Application Received Nof q6 aa"°,'- -1) N Subdivision Information forwarded to Consulting Engineer N I Pi Review/Invoice received from Engineer / Fee Paid (amount $ 1160"' 111&191 Subdivision heard by Planning Commission Final plat submitted with review agency signatures and; _L,�� deed of dedication bond estimate Final plat information forwarded to Engineer Review receivedyfrom Engineer I Wig Final Fee paid ii RECEIPT i N2 022858 AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT PAID J�^^ a ou BALANCE DUE PAID BY -- -- a� CASH IJ� CHECK OTHER FREDERICK COUNTY DEPT. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601 • 9 COURT SQUARE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 F :..DATE - v�' RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS THE SUM OF .__. _. _ _. __. DOLLARS FOR DAY -TIMERS RE -ORDER No 3221—Prmted in USA VSn ul Peluud — LZZC ON H3080-30 SU3NII-AVO 0-4 and C^ n _j Satlll __. i r d0 WnS 3141 ' SS3aaaV fi r woad 03AI3338 T09ZZ VINK)MIA 'H31S31 ONIM 3uvnbS imno0 6 • T09 X09 '0 'd lN3WdOl3A3Q CINd '- 'ld30 AlNf10O MOId3103W / ' a3H10 ❑ A03HD � MSVO ❑,c" is MWA f 3na 3ONVIVS a d lNnOwV iJ i 3na iNnOwV .L Op P p a yUNTY OF F REDE:€ I CK , V I€ G I N i" FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 110950580 Date Received 110990 Date Reviewed 1.R1290 Applicant Name Valley Fertilizer & Chemical Co., Inc. Address P. 0. Box 816 Mt. Jackson, VA 22042 Project (dame Valley. Industrial Park; Phone No. 70 3--44"7-31 R I "type of Application Subdivision Current Zoning M-? 1st Due Fire Co. 13 1st Due Rescue Co. 13 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; Fire lanes must be designated in front of all hydrants per Frederick: County Chapter 10. { Roadway/Aisleway Widths; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes X No Comments: If detention pond #1 is going to have a year round •surface there must b . e9cy vehicle access to waters edge. -7 Cal -Continued- Hydrant Locations; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified X � Additional Comments: Additional hydrants may be required on individual sites as they are developed and will be addressed on site plans or ` construction drawings. Review Time 1.00 hr I I �tfj-fal- A 11 �,Z-1 Fire Marshal uUEC 2 0 Sao ►� L REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION COMMENTS Frederick -Winchester Health Department AT.CN: Herbert L. Sluder, Sanitation Engineer P.O.Boa 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703)'667-9747 .The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenue and Brick Kiln Road, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number:> Po . ra6-"4 ate 2 �`7 0 3' 4'7,? o- Name of develop®uent and/or description of the request: Locations Health Department Comments 3 &mo iJtc/J_0,, ,.�•u-fie ,�1,.;,, �,,,, y�.e ,�:c T Health 'Signature and Dates p C. 121- (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. PLEASEARETIM THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT I ur responsibility to complete this form as accurately as p ble in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, Me attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Fri -Igl MA 5 P REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION CODEI 1401 Frederick County Sanitation ATTN: Wellington Jones,, Engineer/Director F.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and ` phone number: 0,0vin �, B vS��•�ti VAt A GttraKu A-,- coo, , c- - . Al o. B 0X 1Y1412 {? O '�.?o>c S16 W01010 vo 6dy .r Isec_t sal Z T Name of development and/or description of the requests _�/nt�.� � t\iDl 9STTiZ1A.1_ T..L�Q IG Sanit. Signature Date: G7 (NOTICE TO SANITATION LEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPL T.j 'NOTICE TO APPLICANT It 1-9--po responsibility to coasplete this form as accurately as 04ce e in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, attach TWO copies of your plans and/or application form. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-565D The Frederick CountyInspections Department is located at 9 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: r-^-ram A?,4!�Ml-rM 8 M'� 5ASP44 JSQ11 Inspections Department Ccumments: MU. • � D � c�-e- lSr Y' cJ d C' a� �il�- (.Jl�+�.J /Il e�s�_ l}�/ 0fJ,l7:�� %/ Inspect. Signature & Date . — ! = //- •y o o (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS -:17MASE RETURN THIS FOR14 TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It s yo responsibility to complete this form as accurately as - Qsp e' n order to assist the agency with their review. Also, Ie attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. E�.EI E � �.� � PC Review - 1/4/91 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARR 4 LOTS LOCATION: North side of Route 837 near Stephenson, at end of state maintenance MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NO: 44000A000000000000060 ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned M-2 (Industrial General District), present use - industrial ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Area District) & M-1 (Light Industrial-District),present use - residential and Industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Va. Department of Transportation: See Attached letter dated December 4, 1990. Inspections Department: This request for subdivision approval shall comply to the appropriate Use Group in the Boca National Building Code 111987". At the time of plans review, the Use Group will be determined. Fire Marshal: Fire lanes must be designated in front of all hydrants per Frederick County Chapter 10. If detention pond 11 is going to have a year round surface, there must be emergency vehicle access to water's edge. Additional hydrants may be required on individual sites as they are developed and will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. Health Department: Three drainfield sites have been found and approved. These sites must be shown on the plat. The Health Department is awaiting a plat with drainfield sites shown. Page 2 Valley Fertilizer Sanitation Authority: Six items - correct and resubmit. Planning & Zonina. This proposed division of this industrial zoned property is in conformance with the Master Development Plan and the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. All proposed lots have approved drainfield sites. Most review agency comments that need action will be addressed at the site plan stage. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1116191 P/C MTa: Approval APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICR COUNTY VIRGINIA Date:,, 20,/9�90 Application # Fee Paid 1- ZO ?6 ApplicantAA ent Z�19y<d L . XAS11 W..o. 001:?.06'. Address: .0 .��% ,.� ✓� Gf po ,cfox �6z Phone: 703,) 5/M9— 4rp.3-B Owners name: V?/Le.44 lqr7t _eso- Address: x b'/6 A//A. 7 Z ZB /Z-- Phone : / Zej) 5`77- Z12 / Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: Contact Person: Phone: 67-o3�) 4172-SIZ / Name of Subdivision: V1/fey ��us>�r¢�/rlc Number of Lots .�/ Total Acreage Property Location: i44, lbdr-c R r7 (Give State Rt.,J, distance and direction from intersection) Magisterial District'o,��s!/ Tax ID Number (21 digit) Y�{pc�,gpQ�DADDDoGt�oO� 6a Property zoning and present use: II%- 1�o�usTrrd / Adjoining property zoning and use: ,�i9 , des a/cti )( Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes No �� What was the MDP title? Vdl�Bcs _rdvJ1�/i� / Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) Z, 8/V .2crC..4 Number and types of housing units in this development: Number Typesl� 8 . r en7G1 .7. VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNERS, DEVELOPERS, VALLEY FERTILIZER AND CHEMICAL CO., INC. DEED BOOK 504, PAGE 443 �O QP r SITE 3� O I"= 2000' LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 837 IN THE STONEWALL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. Z-�4THHOFL I dto c :1 Z RANDALL K. NEWMAN C NO. 1627 j QQ- ;N� SURvE�� Given Under My Hand This 15th Day Of JANUARY 11991 MORRIS and NEWMAN Professional Land Surveyors Mt. Jackson, Virginia 22842 (703) 477-3730 (703) 459-5676 7 I =BEARINGS ARE MAGNETIC 2=SCALE I "= 200' Q l u 1 1 1 J 3-OTHER RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS IF ANY, ARE NOT SHOWN LEGEND O = .IRON PIN SET _ IRON PIN FOUND v = POINT DF=: PROPOSED DRAINFIELD ZONED M-2 r LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE # 837 IN THE STONEWALL .DISTRICT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA I Hereby Certify That The Plot Shown Hereon Is A True Representation Of A Survey Actually Mode On The Ground Under My Supervision And That To The Best,Of My Knowledge And Belief Is Correct Given Under My Hand This 251h Day Of JAN. , 1991 onw aww q M"K• w . 6K 7 6 1 1 " G 1 2 6 OWNERS CONSENT AND DEDICATION KNOWN BY ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the subdivision of land as shown on this plat, containing 20.181 acres, more less, and designated as Valley Industrial Park Subdivision, situated in the Stonewall District in the County of Frederick, Virginia, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners thereof; that all streets shown on said plat are hereby dedicated to the public use, and that all lots within the subdivision are subject to certain restrictions, reservations, stipulations and covenants as contained in a writing executed by the undersigned, under date of , . and recorded in the Clerk's Office Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book , Page . The said 20.181 acres of land hereby subdivided having been conveyed to Valley Fertilizer and Chemical Co. by Agrico Chemical Co. deed dated January 30, 1979, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed $ook 504, Page 443. Given under my hand this 15 day of mw 1991. v Surveyor's Certificate I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief all of the requirements of the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, and ordinances of the County of Frederick County, Virginia, have been complied with. Given under my hand this 16th day Of -,April 1991 MORR and NEWMAN P fessional Land Surveyors Certificate of Approval This subdivision known as Valley Industrial Park Subdivision is approved by the undersigned in accordance with existing subdivision regulations and may be committed to record. 4 49 Dare Hi way Engfeeer S ►3 ii Dat6 Heal h Official) Date Xreff-derick County Sanitation Authority Date Rep. of Planning Commission � -2�- Date Agent or Revreserftative of Governing Body The foregoing plat is not approved until all signatures have been obtained. VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the DS4—L (iny Of I!"�`� 19__La / " l !�la nd with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. r B K 7 C I �1 5 I 272 THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND PLAT, made this �� r� day of January, 1991, between Valley Fertilizer & Chemical Co., Inc., a Virginia corporation, of the one part, hereinafter called the Grantor; and the County of Frederick, Virginia, of the other part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of a tract of land, containing 20 Acres, more or less, fronting on the North side of State Route 837 in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia which was conveyed to the Grantor by Agrico Chemical Company by deed dated January 30, 1979 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 504, at Page 443; and, WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to subdivide the land as platted on the attached plat prepared by R. J. Morris, C.L.S., in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance of the County of Frederick, Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: That for valuable consideration and the benefits that will accrue by reason of this dedication, the Grantor, by its signature hereto, subdivides, with its free consent and in accordance with its desire, the above referenced property as shown on the attached plat. WITNESS the following signature and seal: VALLEY FERTILIZER & CHEMICAL CO., INC. BY V, L . rYt/o President HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA HARRISON d JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE, CITYi^ UNq!Y- OF �tv ��ia. � To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1991, byZ . mu e o- as .President of Valley Fertilizer & Chemical Co., Inc., a Virginia corporation, on behalf of said Corporation. My commission expires wee I G y �� • ,, a�� ',� `4 Y . r ( SEAL) Notary Public - a ' - 2 - ., VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNERS, DEVELOPERS, VALLEY FERTILIZER AND CHEMICAL CO., INC. DEED BOOK 504, PAGE 443 �O SITE 3? I"= 2000' LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 837 IN THE STONEWALL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. gg i Given Under My Hand This 15th Day Of JANUARY , 1991 M MORRIS and NEWMAN Professional Land Surveyors Mt. Jackson, Virginia 22842 (703) 477-3730 (703) 459-5676 I =BEARINGS ARE MAGNETIC 2=SCALE I'= 200' 3=OTHER RIGHT OF WAYS AND EASEMENTS IF ANY, ARE NOT SHOWN LEGEND O = IRON PIN SET _ IRON PIN FOUND v = POINT DF=. PROPOSED DRAINFIELD ZONED M-2 r LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE # 837 IN THE STONEWALL DISTRICT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1 Hereby Certify That The Plot Shown Hereon Is A True Representation Of A Survey Actually Mode On The Ground Under My Supervision And That To The Best,O►f My Knowledge And Belief Is Correct Given Under My Hand This 251h MO Day Of JAN. ' 1991 Prof Mt. awW prWlWq WVK4 ✓X OWNERS CONSENT AND DEDICATION KNOWN BY ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the subdivision of land as shown on this plat, containing 20.181 acres, more less, and designated as Valley Industrial Park Subdivision, situated in the Stonewall District in the County of Frederick, Virginia, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners thereof; that all streets shown on said plat are hereby dedicated to the public use, and that all lots within the subdivision.are subject to certain restrictions, reservations, stipulations and covenants as contained in a writing executed by the undersigned, under date of , and recorded in the Clerk's Office Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book , Page . The said 20.181 acres of land hereby subdivided having been conveyed to Valley Fertilizer and Chemical Co. by Agrico Chemical Co. deed dated January 30, 1979, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 504, Page 443_ Given under my hand this i5 day of , 1991jrwf, , . P/2�1 Surveyor's Certificate I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief all of the requirements of the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, and ordinances of the County of Frederick County, Virginia, have been complied with. Given under my hand this 16th day of April 1991 MORRIS d NEWMAN Pro ssional Land Surveyors Certificate of Approval This subdivision known as Valley Industrial Park Subdivision is approved by the undersigned in accordance with existing subdivision regulations and may be committed to record. ¢1T91 d. Da a H' hway Engin er S 1 � �► D to 7 !l Date �0- -- 2-- Date <�-2�= W Date Heal h Official ederick County Sanitation Authority Rep. of Planning Commission Agent or R prese a ive of Governing Body The foregoing plat is not approved until all signatures have been obtained. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF SOIL FERTILIZER CONTENT AT THE FORMER VALLEY FERTILIZER PLANT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VA prepared by Environmental Soil Consulting, Inc. December 10, 1990 The present study was undertaken at the request of Mr. Orville Smoot, of Valley Fertilizer and -Chemical Company, Inc., in accordance with a requirement of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for approval of the master development plan for Valley Industrial Park. The Board required Valley Fertilizer to "include on the plan a state- ment certifying that any areas contaminated with fertilizer residue will be identified". The property in question is the site of a former fertilizer manufacturing plant located on the north side of Route 837, 0.2 mile west of Route 11 in Frederick County, VA. As per the Board's request, only fertilizer levels were tested for. Major fertilizers handled at the plant include: ammonia sulfate, ammonia nitrate, urea, DAP (diammonia phosphate), and potash. Possible high levels of these fertilizers can be identified by determining the concentration of their major components, which are: nitrogen, nitrate, sulfur, potassium, and phosphorus. In order to complete a preliminary soil evaluation that identifies "any areas contaminated with fertilizer residue", samples were taken from three locations within each of the four proposed lots (twelve locations total). Sample points were located to both give the best overall picture of fertilizer levels in each lot and locate potential "hot spots". Thus, some sample points were on higher ground, others in drainageways, and others in known areas of fertilizer plant activity. See Table I for general location descriptions and the attached survey plat for the exact location of each sample point. The upper six inches of soil was collected at each sample point with an additional sample collected from 6-12 inches at the three locations near the abandoned fertilizer plant (sample points #10-12). The deeper samples were taken to examine possible leaching from the topsoil in areas of the property with suspected greater fertilizer concentrations. Soil samples were obtained with a clean 3.5 inch bucket auger, which was rinsed and dried between samples. Each soil core obtained was mixed and used to fill an appropriately labelled sample bag. Sample bags were mailed directly to A & L Eastern Agricultural Laboratories, Inc., for analysis of total nitrogen, nitrate, sulfur, potassium, and phosphate. See Table II for results of the analysis of soil fertilizer concentrations at the Valley Fertilizer property. Nitrate levels were relatively low (1-25 ppm) at sample points 1-10, slightly higher at point 12 (99-120 ppm), and much higher at point 11 (920-2500 ppm). Total nitrogen levels remained with the 800-1800 ppm range throughout the site with a particularly low concentration at point 12A (less than 100 ppm) and slightly higher concentration for sample 11B (2700 ppm). Sulfur levels remained relatively low (10-13 ppm) at points 1-7, 9 and 10. Concentrations were somewhat higher at points 8 (195 ppm) and 12 (95-98 ppm) and much higher at point 11 (530-880 ppm). Potassium concentrations were between 111-382 ppm throughout the site with higher levels for samples 8 (950 ppm), 10B (496 ppm), and -2- 12B (880 ppm). Significantly higher levels were found at sample point 11 with concentrations of 2,140 ppm and 5,040 ppm. Phosphorus remained fairly consistent at 106-230 ppm with significantly lower levels at points 4, 5, 6, and 12A (7-44ppm). Examining fertilizer component concentrations by field and sample point locations, a few generalities can be drawn. Fields I, II, and III (outlying lots) generally showed lower concentrations of nitrate, sulfur, and potassium than did field IV (around fertilizer plant). The exceptions being higher levels at point 8, which is located down - slope of the truck wash -off area in field III, and lower levels at point 10, located away from most fertilizer handling activities in field IV. Highest levels of nitrate, sulfur, and potassium were con- sistently found at point 11 which is at/near the former fertilizer truck wash -off area. Concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus either fluctuated widely and/or showed little variation over the entire site. This resulted in no consistent pattern of total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations except for generally lower levels of phosphorus in field II. According to Dr. Paul Chu of A & L Eastern Agricultural Laboratories, there is generally not a great concern at high levels of phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, and total nitrogen in the soil. They can be detri- mental to plant growth at extremely high levels, but their presence, as such, does not present hazards to human health, unless perhaps through direct ingestion. These compounds generally have no certain toxic limits. Nitrate, however, can be toxic at high levels in drinking water. Complicating concern for nitrates is the ease at -3- which they are leached from the soil, as evidenced by the much higher concentrations at 6-12 inches (B) than 0-6 inches (A) at sample point 11. Levels of nitrate were relatively low in fields I, II, and III according to Dr. Chu and the slightly higher levels at point 12 are not unlike levels in normal agricultural fields immediately after fertilizer application. The much higher concentrations at sample point 11 do, however, indicate a potential for concern if high levels of nitrate reach the ground water. -4- Table I - General Location Descriptions of Soil Sample Points at the Former Valley Fertilizer Plant, Frederick County, VA Sample Location Point Field Description 1 I drainageway 2 I drainageway 3 I hillside 4 II low area 5 II hillside 6 II drainageway 7 III hillcrest/ upper hillside 8 III drainageway below truck Wash -off area 9 III hillside 10 IV beside building but away from major fertilizer handling areas 11 IV at/just below truck wash -off area 12 IV beside building, next to fertilizer bins -5- Table II - Concentration (ppm) of Major Fertilizer Components in Soils at the Former Valley Fertilizer Plant, Frederick County, VA Total Phosphorus Field Sample Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfur Potassium P1 P2 I 1 10 1200 12 382 146 163 2 7 1300 13 309 130 171 3 6 1600 14 368 106 150 II 4 11 1300 10 224 18 33 5 5 1200 11 232 9 13 6 25 1800 12 ill 20 44 III 7 1 1100 11 242 122 148 8 18 900 195 950 175 195 9 8 1300 12 160 ill 139 IV 10A* 25 1100 13 284 171 230 10B* 7 800 13 496 52 108 11A 920 1500 530 2140 189 211 11B 2500 2700 880 5040 140 200 12A 120 <100 98 237 7 9 12B 99 1300 95 880 199 222 * A = 0-6" depth, B = 6-12" depth, all others (1-9) at 0-6" depth mm `I H - - fr i DAV L SUSH AN 2 r T- 1� o ilrICATE NO 1232 x r - M a's• '}�?"$.`„' .. .4,r " • ,, REGISTERED d.- z GRAPHIC SCh[n- Z. 4, 3 (w rar 1' C'- 4 �. .. ( -.. ,�., - s r y 1 ~ 47 a.IN uN. FEM E soots F 5% A ��h s rs 41 DATE: ocroecR, gee,_ eC 9 6.9 WT 9DF 5 " r SHEET 2 OF :) COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 January 17, 1991 Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. Attn: Mr. David L. Bushman, P.E. P.O. Box 462 Woodstock, Virginia 22664 RE: Valley Industrial Park Dear David: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of January 16, 1991. Valley Industrial Park Subdivision was approved to subdivide four lots consisting of a total of 20.181 acres. This property is located on the north side of Route 837 near Stephenson in the Stonewall Magisterial District and is identified as parcel 6 on tax map 44. In order for this department to issue final approval it is required that you submit a deed of dedication, letter of credit and plats with signatures from the appropriate agencies. If you have any questions regarding the procedure for final approval please call this office. Sincerely, 0. 9A W. Wayn Miller Subdivision Administrator WWM/slk cc: Valley Fertilizer and Chemical Co., Inc. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 January 9, 1991 Mr. David L. Bushman, P.E. Ref: C/O Shenandoah Engineering Limited 131 South Main Street P. O. Box 462 Woodstock, VA 22664 Dear Dave: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Valley Industrial Park Route 837 Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated December 21, 1990 to the above referenced location. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT shall be conducted prior to initiation of work. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. • Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require (forty-eight) 48 hours notice for inspections. The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. David L. Bushman January 9, 1991 Page #2 • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four W ) feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox as shown on the attached sketch. • Any entrances constructed from the referenced street(s) shall meet VDOT minimum standards. This is the developer's responsibility • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. • I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21-A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. • An agreement between VDOT and Frederick County to absolve the Department of any maintenance or liability of detention basin #2 will be required. This is the developer's responsibility. The executed agreement is needed before the streets will be eligible for acceptance into the State's Secondary Road System. • The proposed fence along the right-of-way line and Lot #2 is to be installed in accordance with the enclosed specifications. A determination on the exact location and termination will be made during construction. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Jerry A. Copp Trans. Ass't. Res. Engr. By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins C 0MCE �E E JAN I f; ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS January 2, 1991 Mr. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Valley Industrial Park Subdivision Plan #17555.116 Dear Wayne: We have completed the review of the Valley Industrial Park Subdivision Plan and find that it meets all requirements. We hereby recommend the approval of this plan as submitted. Sincerely, Tau UE & ASSOCIATES, INC. A. a na , P.E. Project Manager PAB:mb Enclosure cc: Mr. David Bushman, P.E. Shenandoah Engineers, Ltd. i JAN► I ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road, Suite 100, Rairfax, Virginia 22030 ■ 703.385.3566 ■ Fax 703.385.8319 Ptintal on a'(wc/ed oape' 11240 Waples Mill Road ENGINEERS Suite 100 ARCHITECTS Fairfax, Virginia 22030 SCIENTISTS 703.385.3566 Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, Box 601 Winchwster, VA 22601 Your Authorization: Signed Agreement Valley Industrial Park Subdivision Date: Jan.l, 1991 Please Reference: Project No. 17555.116 Invoice No. 9100089 Client No. 07534 Principal .5 hrs @ 48.00 24.00 Project Manager 1.0 hrs @ 33.25 33.25 Engineer 3.0 hrs @ 19.90 59.70 Admin Assist .5 hrs @ 14.50 7.25 Total Direct Total Indirect TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE 124.20 186.30 $310.50 1��2348� 3 JAN 1991 n RECEIVED t.Opq to F,w►anc.-., p5la 11g1q I SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 December 21, 1990 Frederick County Dept. of Planning and Development P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attention:Mr. Kris C. Tierney Re: Valley Industrial Park Dear Mr. Tierney, Enclosed are 15 revised copies of the preliminary subdivision plan for the above refer- enced project. These have been revised to show the existing septic field for the building on lot 2. I have also enclosed 1 set of the construction drawings wich include the same revision. This revi- sion should complete all of the agency review comments on this subdivision. If you have any questions, please let me hear from you. 7ely, 1 avid L. Bushman, P.E., Shenandoah Engigeering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson, w/encl. Mr. Paul Bernard, P.E., Donohue & Associates, w/encl. Mr. Bob Childress, VDOT, w/encl. Mr. John Whitacre, Fred. County Sanitation Auth., w/encl. Mr. Doug Kiracofe, Fred. County Fire Marshall, w/encl. -- Mr. Gregory Lloyd, Fred. County Health Dept., w/encl. Mr. Kenneth L. Coffelt, Fred. County Building Dept., w/encl. DEC 2 61990 I �' file I , CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING MEW LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 December 20, 1990 Frederick County Dept. of Planning and Development P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attention:Mr. Kris C. Tierney Re: Valley Industrial Park Dear Mr. Tierney, Enclosed are two sets of the subdivision application for the above referenced project along with a check for $1,080.00 to cover the filing fee. Also enclosed are 5 copies of the completed Final Master Development Plan for the same project. Also as required, enclosed are 2 sets of the agency review comments, 15 copies of the single sheet subdivision plan, 1 set of the construction drawings, 1 copy of the E & S Plan, and the comments from Donohue & Associates. The 35 mm slide is not available yet and will be forwarded when complete. A copy of the study on fertilizer residue contamination requested by the Board of Supervisors is also enclosed. All review comments have been addressed and the plans revised accordingly with the exception of one comment. We are in the process of locating the existing drain field that serves the existing building on proposed lot 2. This information should be available shortly and the location added to the plans as requested by Mr. Paul Bernard at Donohue. I hope these submittals meet with your approval and this subdivision is placed on the agen- da for the January 16 Planning Commission meeting. By copy of this letter, sets of the revised plans are being forwarded to the review agencies for their final approval. If you have any 4iws- tions, please let me hear from you. cerely, David L. Bushman, P.E., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson, w/encl. Mr. Paul Bernard, P.E., Donohue & Associates, w/encl. Mr. Bob Childress, VDOT, w/encl. KEi Mr. John Whitacre, Fred. County Sanitation Auth., w/encl. I% Mr. Doug Kiracofe, Fred. County Fire Marshall, w/encl. Mr. Grego ryLlo d, Fred. County Health Dept., w/en l . Mr. Kenneth L. Coffelt, Fred. County Building Dept., w/encl. ,1 file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER ( 703 ) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER December 4, 1990 Mr. David L. Bushman, P.E. Ref: Valley Industrial Park C/O Shenandoah Engineering Ltd. Route 837 131 South Main Street Frederick County P. O. Box 462 Woodstock, Virginia 22664 Dear Dave: Upon review of the above referenced development's site plan dated November, 1990 please find our comments on the attached plans marked in red and as follows: 1. The fill shoulder is to be increased to 6' in width. 2. A drainage easement should be provided between the cul-de-sac right-of-way and detention pond #2 as noted. A maintenance/liability agreement between VDOT and Frederick County will be required to cover responsibility of detention pond #2 prior to the street being accepted into the State Secondary Road System. Please ensure the developer understands this requirement fully. 3. A fence will be required along the eastern right-of-way line as noted to control entry into the access road from the existing gravel parking lot. 4. A standard VDOT stop sign will be required at the location noted. 5. A half typical section of the entrance improvements to Lot #2 will be required. Also, the asphalt entrance taper is to be increased to 36' as noted. Please revise and resubmit four (4) 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 concerning the above, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J. A. Copp, Trans. Ass't. Res. Engr. 6pdt�/. e`z/,�� w By: R. B. Childress, Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/r. f_ Attachments xc: Mr._J. C._Heatwole, Mr. F. E. Wymer, Mr. R. W. Watkins TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY R 0 w 117, December 4, 1990 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Valley Industrial Park (Subdivision Plan) ENGINEERS #17555.116 ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS Dear Kris: We have reviewed the above -referenced subdivision plan as submitted and offer the following comments: A. GENERAL 1. Additional spot elevations at building corners and in critical areas where contour lines do not exist would be helpful in the review process and during construction of the site to ensure proper drainage. It would also be beneficial to identify existing features as existing. It is understood that the building and parking areas exist; however, it took time to establish the proposed and existing features. 2. Existing and proposed drainfields should be shown on the plans. Proposed drainfields need to be approved by the Health Department. B. ACCESS ISSUES The two new entrances provided along Route 837 are very close to each other. This may create traffic conflicts depending on the traffic generated to both sites. It would be preferable to combine the access to the existing building off of the proposed road. C. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT A recalculation of the pond design using the given parameters shows that the ponds will adequately operate at 10-year storm. The designer's pond elevation figures shown on plan do not correspond with that specified on the calculation sheets; however, we were able to work through this in comparing relative differences in the elevations for each. Typical sections for the dams and basins would aid in construction. ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Telefaz 703.385.8319 D. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL Erosion and sedimentation control measures and details are proposed and adequately shown on plan. Based on the above, I recommend the approval of this plan after all the above comments have been addressed. If you have any question, please let me know. I have ENGINEERS enclosed copies of my calculations for the engineer's ARCHITECTS review. SCIENTISTS Sincerely, D OHUE ASSOCIAT , INC. Paul A. Bernard, PE Project Manager PAB:mb Enclosure cc: Mr. David Bushman, PE Shenandoah Engineers Ltd. 11240 Waples Mill Road ENGINEERS Suite 100 ARCHITECTS Fairfax, Virginia 22030 SCIENTISTS 703.385.3566 Date: Dec. 4, 1990 Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department Please Reference: 9 Court Square, Box 601 Winchwster, VA 22601 Project No. 17555.116 Invoice No. 9009781 Your Authorization: Signed Agreement Client No. 07534 Valley Industrial Park Principal .5 hrs @ 48.00 24.00 Project Manager 2.0 hrs @ 33.25 66.50 Engineer 8.0 hrs @ 19.90 159.20 Admin. Assist .5 hrs @ 14.50 7.25 Total Direct 256.95 Total Indirect 385.43 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE $ 642.38 -90 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK NOVEMBER,1990 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 131 SOUTH MAIN STREET, WOODSTOCK, VIRGINIA 22664 703-459-4958 NARRATIVE Proiect Description The purpose of this project is to construct an industrial park consisting of 4 lots. The total area of the tract of land is 20.181 acres. It is located in the Frederick County on the north side of Route 837 on the east side of the W & M Railroad. The property is zoned M-2 Industry. Existing Site Conditions The property is presently improved by a block and metal building that houses a truck parts business. The structure was formerly a fertilizer plant. The site is topographically gently rolling in nature. The vegetation cover consist of grasses ,weeds, and mixed trees at its perimeter. The site is well drained by two swales that begin at the southwest and run to the northeast. There are no sinkholes located on this site. Adjacent Property The property is bounded on the west side by the W & M Railroad. To the north is agri- cultural land. To the east is residential and agricultural land. To the south is State Route 837 with Industrial land beyond. Soils There is only one soil category on this site. It is 14B - Frederick - Poplimento loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes. Typically the surface layer of this Frederick soil is dark brown loam about 7" thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 60" or more. It is yellowish red silty clay to a depth of 12". Below that, it is yellowish red and yellowish brown, mottled clay and yellowish red and yellowish brown silty clay. Typically, the surface layer of this Poplimento soil is dark yellowish brown loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 50". In the upper part it is strong brown clay loam to a depth of about 9". In the next part it is yellowish red and strong brown, mottled clay to a depth of 39". In the lower part it is yellowish red and strong brown silty clay loam. The substra- tum is mostly strong brown silty clay loam to a depth of 60" or more. Critical Erosion Areas The erosion hazard is moderate for these soils. However, due to the flat slopes and good management practices, the erosion hazard should be minimized. Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Unless otherwise indicated, all vegetative and structural erosion and sediment control practices will be constructed and maintained according to the minimum standards and specifica- tions of the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook. Structural Practices 1. Outlet Protection - 1.36 Riprap is to be installed at the outlet to all pipes and ditches as indicated on sheet 2 and detailed on sheet 4. Page 2 3. Temporary Construction Entrance - 1.01 A temporary construction entrance will be installed where the new road intersect Route 837. 4. Silt Fence - 1.06 Silt fence will be installed as shown on sheet 2 and detailed on sheet 4. 5. Storm Drain Inlet Protection - 1.08 All storm drain inlets will be protected during construction. 6. Construction Road Stabilization - 1.02 All roads and parking areas on the site will be stabilized with gravel; immediately after grading. 7. Balled Straw Silt Barriers - 1.05 Straw Bale Barriers will'be installed as shown on sheet 2 and detailed on sheet 4. Vegetative Practices 1. Topsoil Stockpile - 1.61 Topsoil will be stripped from areas to be graded and stockpiled for later use. The stock- pile locations will be approved by the engineer. 2. Temporary Seeding - 1.65 The detention ponds, topsoil stockpile and areas to be rough graded during the initial phase of construction will be seeded with -fast germinating, temporary vegetation immediately following grading. Management Strategies 1. Construction will be. sequenced so that grading operations can begin and end as quickly as possible. a. Detention pond #2 shall be constructed first before work starts on the new road- way. b. All erosion control measures will be in place prior to the start of construction. C. Construction will not start on lots 1, 2 and 4 until detention pond #1 is installed. 2. Temporary seeding and other stabilization will follow immediately after grading. Temporary seeding will be applied no later than 7 days after the grading stops. 3. The job superintendent will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all ero- sion and sediment control practices. Page 3 Permanent Stabilization All areas disturbed by the construction will be stabilized with permanent seeding immediately following the finished grading. Seeding will be done with Kentucky 31 Tall fescue according to Std. & Spec. 1.66 of the 1980 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Permanently seeded areas will be protected during the establishment with heavy straw mulch. Stormwater Management Calculation of runoff before and after development indicates the need for detention facili- ties. Two detention ponds are shown on the drawings near the northeast and northwest corners of the property. The ponds have been sized for the 100 yr. storm and will not allow the discharge rate from the project to exceed the 2 yr. pre -development flow. Maintenance In general, all erosion and sediment control measures will be checked weekly and after each significant rainfall. The following items will be checked in particular. 1. The silt fence will be checked regularly to determine if they are functioning properly. 2. All seeded areas will be checked regularly to see that a good stand is maintained. Areas should be fertilized and reseeded as needed. 3. The gravel outlets will be checked regularly for sediment buildup which will prevent drainage. If the gravel is clogged with silt, it will be removed and cleaned or replaced. Runoff Calculations The rational method was used for computing the pre and post development runoff charac- teristics. The runoff can be grouped into 2 distinct drainage areas. The first which is designated as DA 1 on the site plan has a drainage area of 17.90 acres. The pre-existing C for this area is 0.39 and based on 75 % of the area at C=0.25 and the remaining 25 % at C=0.80. The second drainage area DA-2 is 14.55 acres and has a pre -development C of 0.55. This is based on 54 % of the are at C=0.80 and 46% at C=0.25. The post development drainage areas are the same as the .pre -development. The post development C for. both drainage areas is 0.80. Calculations for the detention ponds are included with this report. Pre -development Drainage Area Area Tc 1 17.90 acres 25 min. 2 14.55 acres 25 min. Post -development Drainage Areas Area Tc 1 17.90 acres 25 min. 2 14.55 acres 25 min. C Pre Dev. Runoff 0.39 16.75 cfs 0..55 19.21 cfs Totals 35.96 cfs C Post Dev. Runoff 0.80 34.37 cfs 0.80 27.94 cfs Totals 62.31 cfs Difference 26.35 cfs Page 4 CALCULATIONS SOILS INFORMATION Page 5 PRE -DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREAS EX.-DA Acres C tc i(2) i(10) Q(2)cfs Q(10)cfs 1 17.90 0.39 25 2.40 3.00 16.75 20.94 2 14.55 0.55 25 2.40 3.00 19.21 24.01 POST -DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREAS DA Acres C tc i(2) i(10) Q(2)cfs Q(10)cfs 1 17.90 0.80 25 2.40 3.00 34.37 42.96 2 14.55 0.80 25 2.40 3.00 27.94 34.92 Difference: 26.34 POND #1 DESIGN FOR VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 11 /4/90 GENERAL THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY PROCEDURE IS TO DESIGN A STORM WATER DETENTION POND WHICH WILL STORE THE PEAK OF A DESIGN STORM TO THE EXTENT ADEQUATE TO ALLOW THE CONTROLLED RELEASE OF FLOW NO GREATER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO DEVELOPEMENT. DATA PROJECT VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK COUNTY FREDERICK STATE VA ACREAGE 17.90 Tc 25.00 SCS CURVE: N/A C wgt-pre : 0.39 C wgt-post : 0.80 i 2 2.40 i 10 3.00 . i 100 3.40 12-60min 1.30 110-60min: 1.90 i100-60min: 2.80 Pond bottom 900.00 (also structure invert) PREDICT PRE/POST-DEVELOPEMENT PEAK FLOW Q=CiA in CFS difference 02-pre= 16.75 Q2-post= 34.37 17.61 Q10-pre= 20.94 , Q10- post= 42.96 . 22.02 Q100-pre= .23.74 Q100-post= 48.69 24.95 PREDICT INFLOW HYDROGRAPH time(min) % of total 12-inches 110 -inches 1100-inches 0-10 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 10-20 9.00 0.117 0.171 0.252 20-30 11.00 0.143 0.209 0.308 30-40 49.00 0.637 0.931 1.372 -40-50 15.00 0.195 0.285 0.42 50-60 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 totals 100.00 1.3 1.9 2.8 PREDICT INFLOW EQUATION Q avg=(A)(43560)(C)(1/12)/(10min)(60sec) 86.636 1 HYDROGI VALUES in cfs TIME Qavg-2 Qavg-10 Qavg-100 0-10 9.01 13.17 19.41 10-20 10.14 14.81 21.83 20-30 12.39 18.11 26.68 30-40 55.19 80.66 118.86 40-50 16.89 24.69 36.39 50-60 9.01 13.17 19.41 60-70 2.79 4.07 6.00 PREDICT STAGE STORAGE RELATIONSHIP accum elevation area volume volume 900 0 0 8000 901 16000 8000 17072 S= 6.28615E-05 902 18144 25072 38560 904 20416 63632 TO TAL 63632 ASSUME OUTFLOW DEVICE PIPE Q in CFS hgt above cntr elev 10 12 15 18 21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 2.92 4.21 6.57 9.47 12.89 2 2 4.13 5.95 9.30 13.39 18.22 3 3 5.06 7.29 11.39 16.40 22.32 4 4 5.84 8.42 13.15 18.93 25.77 5 5 6.53 9.41 14.70 21.17 28.81 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -2 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE --- dia= 21 Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumul ELEVATION Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 900.00 0-10 9.01 5406.09 900.15 4.99 2994.38 2411.70 2411.70 900.15 10-20 10.14 - 6081.85 900.28 6.82 4091.11 1990.74 4402.44 900.28 20-30 12.39 7433.37 900.42 8.35 5010.56 2422.81 6825.25 900.43 30-40 55.19 33112.2-8 901.86 17.57 10544.31 22567.97 29393.22 901.85 40-50 16.89 10136.41 901.83 17.43 10458.93 -322.52 29070.70 901.83 50-60 9.01 5406.09 901.56 16.09 9656.60 -4250.51 24820.19 901.56 50-60 1.50 900.00 901.10 13.51 8108.83 -7208.83 17611.36 901.11 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -100,YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE ---- dia= 21 Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumul ELEVATION Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 900.00 Length of Overflow Weir = 40 Overflow Weir Elv. = 902 0-10 19.41 11643.88 900.41 8.25 4950.55 6693.33 6693.33 900.42 10-20 21.83 13099.36 900.80 11.53 6915.23 6184.13 12877.46 900.81 20-30 26.68 16010.33 901.26 14.46 8678.55 7331.78 20209.24 901.27 30-40 118.86 71318.76 902.60 83.37 50022.78 21295.98 41505.22 902.61 40-50 36.39 21832.27 902.32 44.01 26404.03 -4571.76 36933.46 902.32 50-60 19.41 11643.88 902.12 24.36 14616.31 -2972.43 33961.03 902.13 POND #2 DESIGN FOR VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 11 /4/90 GENERAL THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY PROCEDURE IS TO DESIGN A STORM WATER DETENTION POND WHICH WILL STORE THE PEAK OF A DESIGN STORM TO THE EXTENT ADEQUATE TO ALLOW THE CONTROLLED RELEASE OF FLOW NO GREATER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO DEVELOPEMENT. DATA PROJECT VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK POND #2 COUNTY FREDERICK STATE VA ACREAGE 14.55 Tc 25.00 SCS CURVE: N/A C wgt-pre 0.55 C wgt-post : 0.80 i 2 2.40 i 10 3.00 i 100 3.40 12-60min 1.30 110-60min: 1.90 it 00-60min: 2.80 Pond bottom 903.00 (also structure invert) PREDICT PRE/POST-DEVELOPEMENT PEAK FLOW 02-pre= 19.21 Q2-post= Q10-pre= 24.01 Q10- post= Q100-pre= 27.21 Q100- post= PREDICT INFLOW HYDROGRAPH Q=CiA in CFS difference 27.94 8.73 34.92 10.91 39.58 12.37 time(min) % of total /2-inches 110 -inches 1100-inches 0-10 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 10-20 9.00 0.117 0.171 0.252 20-30 11.00 0.143 0.209 0.308 30-40 49.'00 0.637 0.931 1.372 40-50 15.00 0.195 0.285 0.42 50-60 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 totals 100'.00 1.3 1.9 2.8 PREDICT INFLOW EQUATION Q avg=(A)(43560)(C)(1/12)/(10min)(60sec) 70.422 1 HYDROGI VALUES in cfs TIME Qavg-2 Qavg-10 Qavg-100. 0-10 7.32 10.70 15.77 10-20 8.24 12.04 17.75 20-30 10.07 14.72 21.69 30-40 44.86 65.56 96.62 40-50 13.73 20.07 29.58 50-60 7.32 10.70 15.77 60-70 2.79 4.07 6.00 PREDICT STAGE STORAGE RELATIONSHIP accum elevation area volume volume 903 0 0 6240 904 12480 6240 27360 S= 8.92857E-05 906 14880 33600 ;TO TAL 33600 ASSUME OUTFLOW DEVICE PIPE Q in CFS hgt above cntr elev 10 12 15 18 21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 2.92 4.21 6.57 9.47 12.80 2 2 4.13 5.95 9.30 13.39 18.22 3 3 5.06 7.29 11.39 16.40 22.32 4 4 5.84 8.42 13.15 18.93 25.77 5 5 6.53 9.41 14.70 21.17 28.81 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -2 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE --- dia= 21 Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumul ELEVATION Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 903.00 0-10 7.32 4394.33 - 903.13 4.65 2787.62 1606.71 1606.71 903.14 10-20 8.24 4943.62 903.25 6.44 3865.73 1077.89 2684.61 903.24 20-30 10.07 6042.21 903.36 7.73 4638.88 1403.33 4087.93 903.36 30-40 44.86 26915.29 904.83 17.43 10458.93 16456.36 20544.29 904.83 40-50 13.73 8239.37 904.68 16.70 10021.12 -1781.75 18762.54 904.68 50-60 7.32 4394.33 904.29 14.64 8781.26 -4386.92 14375.62 904.28 50-60 1.50 900.00 903.76 11.23 6740.13 -5840.13 8535.48 903.76 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -100 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE ---- dia= 21 Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume. Cumul ELEVATION Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 903.00 Length of Overflow Weir = 50 Overflow Weir Elv. = 905 040 15.77 9464.72 -903.40 8.15 4889.81 4574.91 4574.91 903.41 10-20 17.75 10647.81 903.76 11.23 6740.13 3907.67 8482.58 903.76 20-30 21.69 13013.99 904.17 13.94 8362.86 4651.13 13133.71 904.17 30-40 96.62 57971.39 905.46 72.73 43640.15 14331.24 27464.94 905.45 40=50 29.58 17746.34 905.20 34.17 20502.22 -2755.88 24709.06 905.21 50-60 15.77 9464.72 905.03 19.23 11540.51 -2075.79 22633.28 905.02 < r i -77 7-2f%-, - ,T-7 'ram 24 Soil Survey shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is moderate. The root zone extends to a depth of 60 inches or more, but is restricted below a depth of 25 inches by siltstone fragments. Natural fertility is medium, and organic matter content is moderate. The surface layer commonly is moderately acid or strongly acid, except where the soil has been limed. The subsoil is strongly acid or moderately acid. Most areas of this soil are used as woodland. Some areas are used as orchards and for pasture and hay. A few areas are used for cultivated crops. The soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops. Crops respond well to lime and fertilizers. Using conservation tillage, growing cover crops, including grasses and legumes in the cropping system, and crop residue management help to maintain the organic matter content and soil tilth, to reduce crusting, to increase water infiltration, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. This soil is moderately well suited to hay and pasture. Establishing and maintaining a mixture of grasses and legumes and preventing overgrazing are,major pasture management concerns. Overgrazing causes: surface compaction and increases runoff and erosion. Using stocking rates within carrying capacity, using deferred grazing, and liming and fertilizing help to maintain a good stand of grasses and legumes, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. Liming is needed to offset the acidity of the soil. Fertilizing generally is required to increase the amount of available nutrients in the soil. Potential productivity for trees on this soil is moderately high on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect. Slope is a moderate limitation to use of logging equipment. The rate of seedling mortality is slight on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect. The soil is well suited to use as orchards. Depth to bedrock, potential frost action, slope, and small stones in the soil are the main limitations to use of this soil for community development. This soil is in capability subclass We 13E— ra annery silt loam, 25 to 35 ;ercent sl pe .This soi is v and very nd well drained. It is on uplands, mainly s slopes, in the valley. Areas of this soil commonly are long and winding and irregularly oval. They are about 500 to 4,500 feet long. They range from 3 to about 100 acres. Typically, the surface layer is dark brown and dark yellowish brown channery silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 40 inches. It is yellowish brown channery and very channery silty clay loam to a depth of 15 inches. Below that, it is strong brown channery and very channery silty clay. The substratum is strong brown clay to a depth of 60 inches or more. Included with this soil in mapping are areas, generally less than 3 acres each, of Frederick and Poplimento soils along slope breaks near the edge of this map unit. Also included are areas of soils that have slopes of more than 35 percent. These included soils make up about 15 percent of the map unit. Also included are areas of soils that are moderately deep and shallow to rippable siltstone bedrock. These included soils make up about 15 percent of the map unit. Also included in some map units are scattered areas of rock outcrops. Permeability in this Frankstown soil is moderate, and the available water, capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is rapid. The erosion hazard is severe. The surface layer is friable and easily tilled when moist, but breaks up into clods if the soil is tilled when too wet or too dry. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is moderate. The root zone extends to a depth of 60 inches or more, but is restricted below 25 inches by siltstone fragments. Natural fertility is medium, and organic matter content is moderate. The surface layer commonly is moderately acid or strongly acid, except where the soil has been limed. The subsoil is strongly acid or moderately acid. Nearly all areas -of this soil are used as woodland. This soil is not suited, to cultivated crops because the slopes are too steep. This soil is poorly suited to hay and pasture. Establishing and maintaining a mixture of grasses and legumes and preventing overgrazing are major pasture management concerns. Overgrazing causes surface compaction and increases runoff and erosion. Using stocking rates within carrying capacity, deferred grazing, using rotation grazing, and liming and fertilizing help to maintain a good stand of grasses and legumes, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. Liming is needed to offset the acidity of the soil. Fertilizing generally is required to increase the amount of available nutrients in the soil. Potential productivity for trees on this soil is moderately high on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect..ln some areas slope is a moderate limitation to use of logging equipment. The rate of seedling mortality is slight on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect. Slope is the main limitation to use of this soil for, community development. This soil is in capability subclass Vle. —A-1413—Frederick-Poplimento foams, 2 to 7 percent slopes. This map unit consists of very deep, gently sloping, well drained soils on narrow to broad, convex valley sides. A typical area of this map unit is about 45 percent Frederick soil, 40 percent Poplimento soil, and 15 percent other soils. Areas of this map unit commonly are irregularly shaped or long and narrow. They are about 300 to.5,000 feet long, and range from 3 to more than 100 acres. The Frederick and Poplimento soils are intermingled so closely that it was not practical to map them separately. Frederick County, Virginia Typically, the surface layer of the Frederick soil is dark brown loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 60 inches or :more. It is yellowish red silty clay loam to a depth of about 12 inches. Below that, it is yellowish red and yellowish brown, mottled clay and yellowish red and yellowish brown silty clay. Typically, the surface layer of the Poplimento soil is dark yellowish brown loam about 5 inches.thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 50 inches. In the upper part it is strong brown clay loam to a depth of about 9 inches. In the next part it is yellowish red and strong brown, mottled clay to a depth of 39 inches. In the lower part it is yellowish red and strong brown silty clay Loam. The substratum is mostly strong brown silty clay loam to a depth of 60 inches or more. Included with these soils in mapping are small areas, generally less than 3 acres each, of Oaklet, Swimley, and Timberville soils. Oaklet and Swimley soils are scattered throughout the map unit. Timberville soils are in depressions and along drainageways. These included soils make up about 15 percent of the map unit. Also included in some map units are areas of severely eroded soils. In some map units rock outcrops cover as much as 1 percent of the surface. Permeability is moderate. in the Frederick soil and moderately slow in the Poplimento soil. The available water capacity is moderate in both soils. Surface runoff 25 is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The surface layer is friable and easily tilled. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is high. The root zone extends to a depth of more than 60 inches. Natural fertility is medium, and organic matter content is low. The soils commonly are moderately acid or strongly acid throughout. Most areas of these soils are used for cultivated crops, pasture, and hay (fig. 3). Some areas are in urban use, and a few areas are used as woodland. These soils are well suited to cultivated crops. Crops respond well to lime and fertilizer. Using conservation tillage, growing cover crops, including grasses and legumes in the.cropping system, and crop residue Management help to maintain the organic matter content in the surface layer and soil tilth, to reduce crusting, to increase water infiltration, and to control erosion. These soils are well suited to hay and pasture. Establishing and maintaining a mixture of grasses and legumes and preventing overgrazing are the main pasture management concerns. Overgrazing causes surface compaction and increases runoff and erosion. Using stocking rates within carrying capacity, deferred grazing, using rotation grazing, and liming and fertilizing help to maintain a good stand of grasses and legumes, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. Liming is needed to offset the acidity of the soil. Fertilizing Figure 3.—Alfalfa in an area of Frederick-Poplimento foams, 2 to 7 percent slopes; corn in an area of Timberville silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes, in a depression; and an apple orchard in an area of Oaklet silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, in background. "60 oes r btr MA )IUD K .7— M� PT, 10 x 119 Q)l 0 C­ EL IZ- -Oaq ar —W CO " 11 -41 ea LU ------------- 4(3 -OIL' , It NVI ol _"V oi 57: 47,h :_)TllZ \Z_4 1 4 1990 (�: � 4n (�� " � STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK NOVEMBER, 1990 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 131 SOUTH MAIN STREET, WOODSTOCK, VIRGINIA 22664 703-459-4958 NARRATIVE Proiect Descrivtion The purpose of this project is to construct an industrial park consisting of 4 lots. The total area of the tract of land is 20.181 acres. It is located in the Frederick County on the north side of Route 837 on the east side of the W & M Railroad. The property is zoned M-2 Industry. Existing Site Conditions The property is presently improved by a block and metal building that houses a truck parts business. The structure was formerly a fertilizer plant. The site is topographically gently rolling in nature. The vegetation cover consist of grasses ,weeds, and mixed trees at its perimeter. The site is well drained by two swales:that begin at the southwest and run to the northeast. There are no sinkholes located on this site. Adiacent Pronert The property is bounded on the west side by the W & M Railroad. To the north is agri- cultural land. To the east is residential and agricultural land. To the south is State Route 837 with Industrial land beyond. Soils There is only one soil category on this site. It is 14B - Frederick - Poplimento loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes. Typically the surface layer of this Frederick soil is dark brown loam about 7" thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 60" or more. It is yellowish red silty clay to a depth of 12". Below that, it is yellowish red and yellowish brown, mottled clay and yellowish red and yellowish brown silty clay. Typically, the surface layer of this Poplimento soil is dark yellowish brown loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 50". In the upper part it is strong brown clay loam to a depth of about 9". In the next part. it is yellowish red and strong brown, mottled clay to a depth of 39". In the lower part it is yellowish red and strong brown silty clay loam. The substra- tum is mostly strong brown silty clay loam to a depth of 60 or more. Critical Erosion Areas The erosion hazard is moderate for these soils. However, due to the flat slopes and good management practices, the erosion hazard should be minimized. Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Unless otherwise indicated, all vegetative and structural erosion and sediment control practices will be constructed and maintained according to the minimum standards and specifica- tions of the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook. Structural Practices 1. Outlet Protection - 1.36 Riprap is to be installed at the outlet to all pipes and ditches as indicated on sheet 2 and detailed on sheet 4. Page 2 3. Temporary Construction Entrance - 1.01 A temporary construction entrance will be installed where the new road intersect Route 837. 4. Silt Fence - 1.06 Silt fence will be installed as shown on sheet 2 and detailed on sheet 4. 5. Storm Drain Inlet Protection - 1.08 All storm drain inlets will be protected during construction. 6. Construction Road Stabilization - 1.02 All roads and parking areas on the site will be stabilized with gravel; immediately after grading. 7. Balled Straw Silt Barriers - 1.05 Straw Bale Barriers will be installed as shown on sheet 2 and detailed on sheet 4. Vegetative Practices 1. Topsoil Stockpile - 1.61 Topsoil will be stripped from areas to be graded and stockpiled for later use. The stock- pile locations will be approved by the engineer. ` 2. TemporarSeeding - 1.65 The detention ponds, topsoil stockpile and areas to be rough graded during the initial phase of construction will be seeded with fast germinating, temporary vegetation immediately following grading. Management Strategies 1. Construction will be sequenced so that grading operations can begin and end as quickly as possible. a. Detention pond #2 shall be constructed first before work starts on the new road- way. b. All erosion control measures will. be in place prior to the start of construction. C. Construction will not start on lots 1, 2 and 4 until detention pond #1 is installed. 2. Temporary seeding and other stabilization will follow immediately after grading. Temporary seeding will be applied no later than 7 days after the grading stops. 3. The job superintendent will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all ero- sion and sediment control practices. Page 3 Permanent Stabilization All areas disturbed by the construction will be stabilized with permanent seeding immediately following the finished grading. Seeding will be done with Kentucky 31 Tall fescue according to Std. & Spec. 1.66 of the 1980 Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Permanently seeded areas will be protected during the establishment with heavy straw mulch. Stormwater Management Calculation of runoff before and after development indicates the need for detention facili- ties. Two detention ponds are shown on the drawings near the northeast and northwest corners of the property. The ponds have been sized for the 100 yr. storm and will not allow the discharge rate from the project to exceed the 2 yr. pre -development flow. Maintenance In general, all erosion and sediment control measures will be checked weekly and after each significant rainfall. The following items will be checked in particular. 1. The silt fence will be checked regularly to determine if they are functioning properly. 2. All seeded areas will be checked regularly to see that a good stand is maintained. Areas should be fertilized and reseeded as needed. 3. The gravel outlets will be checked regularly for sediment buildup which will prevent drainage. If the gravel is clogged with silt, it will be removed and cleaned or replaced. Runoff Calculations The rational method was used for computing the pre and post development runoff charac- teristics. The runoff can be grouped into 2 distinct drainage areas. The first which is designated as DA 1 on the site plan has a drainage area of 17.90 acres. The pre-existing C for this area is 0.39 and based on 75 % of the -area at C=0.25 and the remaining 25 % at C=0.80. The second drainage area DA-2 is 14.55 acres and has a pre -development C of 0.55. This is based on 54 % of the are at C=0.80 and 46% at C=0.25. The post development drainage areas are the same as the pre -development. The post development C for both drainage areas is 0.80. Calculations for the detention ponds are included with this report. Pre -development Drainage Area Area Tc 1 17.90 acres 25 min. 2 14.55 acres 25 min. Post -development Drainage Areas Area Tc 1 17.90 acres 25 min. 2 14.55 acres 25 min. C Pre Dev. Runoff 0..39 16.75 cfs 0..55 19.21 cfs Totals 35.96 cfs C Post Dev. Runoff 0.80 34.37 cfs 0.80 27.94 cfs Totals 62.31 cfs Difference 26.35 cfs Page 4 CALCULATIONS SOILS INFORMATION Page 5 PRE -DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREAS EX.-DA Acres C tc i(2) i(10) Q(2)cfs Q(10)cfs 1 17.90 0.39 25 2.40 3.00 16.75 20.94 2 14.55 0.55 25 2.40 3.00 19.21 24.01 POST -DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE AREAS DA Acres C tc i(2) i(10) Q(2)cfs Q(10)cfs 1 17.90 0.80 25 2.40 3.00 34.37 42.96 2 14.55 0.80 25 2.40 3.00 27.94 34.92 Difference: 26.34 POND #1 DESIGN FOR VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 11 /4/90 GENERAL THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY PROCEDURE IS TO DESIGN A STORM WATER DETENTION POND WHICH WILL STORE THE PEAK OF A DESIGN STORM TO THE EXTENT ADEQUATE TO ALLOW THE CONTROLLED RELEASE OF FLOW NO GREATER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO DEVELOPEMENT. DATA PROJECT VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK COUNTY FREDERICK STATE VA ACREAGE 17.90 Tc 25.00 SCS CURVE: N/A C wgt-pre 0.39 C wgt-post : 0.80 i 2 2.40 i 10 3.00 i 100 3.40 12-60min 1.30 110-60min: 1.90 i100-60min: 2.80 Pond bottom 900.00 (also structure invert) PREDICT PRE/POST-DEVELOPEMENT PEAK FLOW. Q=CiA in CFS difference Q2-pre= 16.75 Q2-post= 34.37 17.61 Q10-pre= 20.94 Q10- post= 42.96 22.02 Q100-pre= 23.74 Q100- post= . 48.69 24.95 PREDICT INFLOW HYDROGRAPH time(min) % of total 12-inches /10 -inches 1100-inches 0-10 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 10-20 9.00 0.117 0.171 0.252 20-30 11.00 0.143 0.209 0.308 30-40 49.00 0.637 0.931 1.372 40-50 15.00 0.195 0.285 0.42 50-60 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 totals 100.00 1.3 1.9 2.8 PREDICT INFLOW EQUATION Q avg=(A)(43560)(C)(1/12)/(10min)(60sec) 86.636 1 HYDROGI VALUES in cfs TIME Qavg-2 Qavg-10 Qavg-100 0-10 9.01 13.17 19.41 10-20 10.14 14.81 21.83 20-30 12.39 18.11 26.68 30-40 55.19 80.66 118.86 40-50 16.89 24.69 36.39 50-60 9.01 13.17 19.41 60-70 2.79 4.07 6.00 PREDICT STAGE STORAGE RELATIONSHIP accum elevation area volume volume 900 0 0 8000 901 16000 8000 17072 902 18144 25072 38560 904 20416 63632 TOTAL 63632 S= 6.28615E-05 ASSUME OUTFLOW DEVICE PIPE Q in CFS hgt above cntr elev 10 12 15 18 21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 2.92 4.21 6.57 9.47 12.89 2 2 4.13 5.95 9.30 13.39 18.22 3 3 5.06 7.29 11.39 16.40 22.32 4 4 5.84 8.42 13.15 18.93 25.77 5 5 6.53 9.41 14.70 21.17 28.81 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -2 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE --- dia= Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumul Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 900.00 0-10 9.01 5406.09 900.15 4.99 2994.38 2411.70 2411.70 10-20 10.14 - 6081.85 900.28 6.82 4091.11 1990.74 4402.44 20-30 12.39 7433.37 900.42 8.35 5010.56 2422.81 6825.25 30-40 55.19 33112.28 901.86 17.57 10544.31 22567.97 29393.22 40-50 16.89 10136.41 901.83 17.43 10458.93 -322.52 29070.70 50-60 9.01 5406.09 901.56 16.09 9656.60 -4250.51 24820.19 50-60 1:50 900.00 901.10 13.51 8108.83 -7208.83 17611.36 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -100 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE ---- dia= Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumul Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= -900.00 Length of Overflow Weir = 40 Overflow Weir Elv. = 902 0-10 19.41 11643.88 900.41 8.25 4950.55 6693.33 6693.33 10-20 21.83 13099.36 900.80 11.53 6915.23 6184.13 12877.46 20-30 26.68 16010.33 901.26 14.46 8678.55 7331.78 20209.24 30-40 118.86 71318.76 902.60 83.37 50022.78 21295.98 41505.22 40-50 36.39 21832.27 902.32 44.01 26404.03 -4571.76 36933.46 50-60 19.41 11643.88 902.12 24.36. 14616.31 -2972.43 33961.03 21 ELEVATION 900.15 900.28 900.43 901.85 901.83 901.56 901.11 21 ELEVATION 900.42 900.81 901.27 902.61 902.32 902.13 POND #2 DESIGN FOR VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 11 /4/90 GENERAL THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY PROCEDURE IS TO DESIGN A STORM WATER DETENTION POND WHICH WILL STORE THE PEAK OF A DESIGN STORM TO THE EXTENT ADEQUATE TO ALLOW THE CONTROLLED RELEASE OF FLOW NO GREATER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO DEVELOPEMENT. DATA PROJECT VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK POND #2 COUNTY FREDERICK STATE VA ACREAGE 14.55 Tc 25.00 SCS CURVE: N/A C wgt-pre : 0.55 C wgt-post : 0.80 i 2 2.40 i 10 3.00 i 100 3.40 12-60min 1.30 110-60min: 1.90 1100-60min: 2.80 Pond bottom 903.00 (also structure invert) PREDICT PRE/POST-DEVELOPEMENT PEAK FLOW Q=CiA in CFS difference Q2-pre= 19.21 Q2-post= 27.94 8.73 010-pre= 24.01 Q10- post= 34.92 10.91 0100-pre= 27.21 Q100- post= 39.58 12.37 PREDICT INFLOW HYDROGRAPH dme(min) % of total 12-inches i10 -inches i100-inches 0-10 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 10-20 9.00 0.117 0.171 0.252 20-30 11.00 0.143 0.209 0.308 30740 49.00 0.637 0.931 1.372 40-50 15.00 0.195 0.285 0.42 50-60 8.00 0.104 0.152 0.224 totals 100.00 1.3 1.9 2.8 PREDICT INFLOW EQUATION Q avg=(A)(43560)(C)(1/12)/(10min)(60sec) 70.422 1 HYDROGI VALUES in cfs TIME Qavg-2 Qavg-10 Qavg-100 0-10 7.32 10.70 15.77 10-20 8.24 12.04 17.75 20-30 10.07 14.72 21.69 30-40 44.86 65.56 96.62 40-50 13.73 20.07 29.58 50-60 7.32 10.70 15.77 60-70 2.79 4.07 6.00 PREDICT STAGE STORAGE RELATIONSHIP accum elevation area volume volume 903 0 0 6240 904 12480 6240 27360 S= 8.92857E-05 906 14880 33600 ,TOTAL 33600 ASSUME OUTFLOW DEVICE PIPE Q in CFS hgt above cntr elev 10 12 15 18 21 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 2.92 4.21 6.57 9.47 12.89 2 2 4.13 5.95 9.30 13.39 18.22 3 3 5.06 7.29 11.39 16.40 22.32 4 4 5.84 8.42 13.15 18.93 25.77 5 5 6.53 9.41 14.70 21.17 28.81 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -2 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE --- dia= 21 Average Inflow Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumul ELEVATION Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 903.00 0-10 7.32 4394.33 903.13 4.65 2787.62 1606.71 1606.71 903.14 10-20 8.24 4943.62 903.25 6.44 3865.73 1077.89 2684.61 903.24 20-30 10.07 6042.21 903.36 7.73 4638.88 1403.33 4087.93 903.36 30-40 44.86 26915.29 904.83 17.43 10458.93 16456.36 20544.29 904.83 40-50 13.73 8239.37 904.68 16.70 10021.12 -1781.75 18762.54 904.68 50-60 7.32 4394.33 904.29 14.64 8781.26 -4386.92 14375.62 904.28 50-60 1.50 900.00 903.76 11.23 6740.13 -5840.13 8535.48 903.76 PERFORM FLOOD ROUTING -100 YEAR STORM & PIPE DISCHARGE ---- dia= 21 Average Inflow . � Trial Average Outflow Volume Cumu/ ELEVATION. Time Inflow Volume Elevation Outflow Volume Difference Volume Begin el= 903.00 Length of Overflow Weir = 50 Overflow Weir Elv. = 905 0-10 15.77 9464.72 903.40 8.15 4889.81 .4574.91 4574.91 903.41 10-20 17.75 10647.81 903.76 11.23 6740.13 .3907.67 8482.58 903.76 20-30 21.69 13013.99 904.17 13.94 8362.86 4651.13 13133.71 904.17 30-40 96.62 57971.39 905.46 72.73 43640.15 14331.24 27464.94 905.45 40-50 29.58 17746:34 905.20 34.1.7 20502.22 -2755.88 24709.06 905.21 50-60 15.77 9464.72 905.03 19.23 11540.51 -2075.79 22633.28 905.02 'f •° s V �' � "'"•tit �i� y��rr;�"''�: tr�^�" �..c..# �r �'C�i�%r'�4,r• £.ryr..� i ,L. . sC 7 % Y It•� -� yr i 'y. a'Sd j 1 lye • / i ,. � ��J• +? �••, �..� �rr� �i: y i �. �-•J ej �AA�-• 4'h)�J�+ ^ � '!' I! •'r1„•..' ',J*.° i �'�.:.� ��t'.•fir ; i,� -.�. - C - � .sue � �,�, '- r , • � '�i�-..ci � 3S of r � ��� ; �` ,�`+• a., r r , r : vh '✓ ®✓``�rj�/= a�+,��thNart' �q a ft t' x�Y7 k. : f JJ•` 1 �f .. 1: 6� ta•` ?r ,II � 1'4� �,, -' ,��' ��"'^fi � ��~ �. �"� % �4 t _ Psi `� ,•� ", � . r -- s � - > ! tax/-!I'� �/'"`".�Jy � � �Jr � a� � t .-- s , j� '1 ri ":.� ''✓..-`}�� f ;: a'.- �+�- r!r..-.`.. � .....ct /!tll��� �,c ifFr�. '`.��� .. i�,� �v 4'!- �_: o•} Jt -4��' .�£� !•� � � ,�� P �j f' ��i Et�,��s � ��.. r � 1• ! .7F{� ! '1 � -`2 M .rS M•' � ) /f, • l ,4r� ��' �+r•. Y rj.7lit �J" A .. � � � ��E > Z I�! l` R •nip `�n Y ry'•.. ` t NNW SIR", Se JIr �~ �` � r / �E�••. �1`\� .1 -� r •r s j r""« _ ! `,\ ; -• 1 ' �• �'y14 {J,}'f Jy7Jf'r7 Syr P,► Ise' 17.E \�Ylua � • _.:... 1!"` i�t ._!y._._�`�t.i_J..J::■.►. `--�v�i�.i'' \L�:- � � 1'"_''i .� •;-' _ { - J / w' , y:- • rl. ! T—�L s.:'; -► _ ; ,'.1 7,aj.••y,�.� „'i _'_'' �'TG-.,.. r ,Zt 24 Soil Survey shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is moderate. The root zone extends to a depth of 60 inches or more, but is restricted below a depth of 25 inches by siltstone fragments. Natural fertility is medium, and organic matter content is moderate. The surface layer commonly is moderately acid or strongly acid, except where the soil has been limed. The subsoil is strongly acid or moderately acid.; Most areas of this soil are used as woodland. Some areas are used as orchards and for pasture and hay. A few areas are used for cultivated crops. The soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops. Crops respond well to lime and fertilizers. Using conservation tillage, growing cover crops, including grasses and legumes in the cropping system, and crop residue management help to maintain the organic matter content and soil tilth, to reduce crusting, to increase water infiltration, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. This soil is moderately well suited to hay and pasture. Establishing and maintaining a mixture of grasse.s and legumes and preventing overgrazing are,major pasture management concerns. Overgrazing causes surface compaction and increases runoff and erosion. Using stocking rates within carrying capacity, using deferred grazing, and liming and fertilizing help to maintain a good stand of grasses and legumes, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. Liming is needed to offset the acidity bf the soil. Fertilizing generally is required to increase the amount of available nutrients in the soil. Potential productivity for trees on this soil is moderately high on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect. Slope is a moderate limitation to use of logging equipment. The rate of seedling mortality is slight on the north aspect and moderate on the south. aspect. The soil is well suited to use as orchards. Depth to bedrock, potential frost action, slope, and small stones in the soil are the main limitations to use of this soil for community development. :percent Thiissoil is incapability subclass IVe 13E—Fr�T annery silt loam, 25 tc 35 sl pe . Thisoi is v and very nd .well drained. It is on uplands, mainly s slopes, in the valley. Areas of this soil commonly are long and winding and irregularly oval. They are about 500 to 4,500 feet long. They range from 3 to about 100 acres. Typically, the surface layer is dark brown and dark yellowish brown channery silt loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of about 40 inches. It is yellowish brown channery and very channery silty clay loam to a depth of 15 inches. Below that, it is strong brown channery and very channery silty clay. The substratum is strong brown clay to a depth of 60 inches or more. Included with this soil in mapping are areas, generally less than 3 acres each, of Frederick and Poplimento soils along slope breaks near the edge of this map unit. Also included are areas of soils that have slopes of more than 35 percent. These included soils make up about 15 percent of the map unit. Also included are areas of soils that are moderately deep and shallow to rippable siltstone bedrock. These included soils make up about 15 percent of the map unit. Also included in some map units are scattered areas of rock outcrops. Permeability in this Frankstown soil is moderate, and the available water, capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is rapid. The erosion hazard is severe. The surface layer is friable and easily tilled when moist, but breaks up into clods if the soil is tilled when too wet or too dry. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is moderate. The root zone extends to a depth of 60 inches or more, but is restricted below 25 inches by siltstone fragments. Natural fertility is medium, and organic matter content is moderate. The surface layer commonly is moderately acid or strongly acid, except where the soil has been limed. The subsoil is strongly acid or moderately acid. Nearly all areas of this soil are used as woodland. This soil is not suited. to cultivated crops because the slopes are too steep. This soil is poorly suited to hay and pasture. Establishing and maintaining a mixture of grasses and legumes and preventing overgrazing are major pasture management concerns. Overgrazing causes surface compaction and increases runoff and erosion. Using stocking rates within carrying capacity, deferred grazing, using rotation grazing, and liming and fertilizing help to maintain a good stand of grasses and legumes, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. Liming is needed to offset the acidity of the soil. Fertilizing generally is required to increase the amount of available nutrients in the soil. Potential productivity for trees on this soil is moderately high on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect. In some areas slope is a moderate limitation to use of logging equipment. The rate of seedling mortality is slight on the north aspect and moderate on the south aspect. Slope is the main limitation to use of this soil for. community development. This soil is in capability subclass Vie. -- w 14B—Frederick-Poplimento loams, 2 to .7 percent slopes. This map unit consists of very deep, gently sloping, well drained soils on narrow to broad, convex valley sides. A typical area of this map unit is about 45 percent Frederick soil, 40 percent Poplimento soil, and 15 percent other soils. Areas of this map unit. commonly are irregularly shaped or long and narrow. They are about 300 to 5,000 feet long, and range from 3 to more than 100 acres. The Frederick and Poplimento soils are intermingled so closely that it was not practical to map them separately. Frederick County, Virginia Typically, the surface layer of the Frederick soil is dark brown loam about 7 inches thick. The subsoa extends to a depth of 60 inches or ,more. It is yellowish red silty clay loam to a depth of about 12 inches. Below that, it is - yellowish red and yellowish brown, mottled clay and yellowish red and yellowish brown silty clay. Typically, the surface layer of the Poplimento soil is dark yellowish brown loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 50 inches. In the upper part it is strong brown clay loam to a depth of about 9 inches. In the next part it is yellowish red and strong brown, mottled clay to a depth of 39 inches. In the lower part it is yellowish red and strong brown silty clay loam. The substratum is mostly strong brown silty clay loam to a depth of 60 inches or more. Included with these soils in mapping are small areas, generally less than 3 acres each, of Oaklet, Swimley, . and Timberville soils. Oaklet and Swimley soils are scattered throughout the map unit. Timberville soils are in depressions and along drainageways. These included soils make up about 15 percent of the map unit. Also included in some map units are areas of severely eroded soils. In some map units rock outcrops cover as much as 1 percent of the surface. Permeability is moderate in the Frederick soil and moderately slow in the Poplimento soil. The available water capacity is moderate in both soils. Surface runoff 25 is medium. The erosion hazard is moderate. The surface layer is friable and easily tilled. The shrink -swell potential in the subsoil is high. The root zone extends to a depth of more than 60 inches. Natural fertility is medium, and organic matter content is low. The soils commonly are moderately acid or strongly acid throughout. Most areas of these soils are used for cultivated crops, pasture, and hay (fig. 3). Some areas are in urban use, and a few areas are used as woodland. These soils are well suited to cultivated crops. Crops respond well to lime and fertilizer. Using conservation tillage, growing cover crops, including grasses and legumes in the cropping system, and crop residue management help to maintain the organic matter content in the surface layer and soil tilth, to reduce crusting, to increase water infiltration, and to control erosion. These soils are well suited to hay and pasture. Establishing and maintaining a mixture of grasses and legumes and preventing overgrazing are the main pasture management concerns. Overgrazing causes surface compaction and increases runoff and erosion. Using stocking rates within carrying capacity, deferred grazing, using rotation grazing, and liming and fertilizing help to maintain a good stand of grasses and legumes, to reduce runoff, and to control erosion. Liming is needed to offset the acidity of the soil. Fertilizing Figure 3.—Alfalfa in an area of Frederick-Poplimento loams, 2 to 7 percent slopes; corn in an area of Timberville silt loam, 2.to 7 percent slopes, in a depression; and an apple orchard in an area of Oaklet silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, in background. IF •' r -F� l i. , ��' ,J+, i' ; \ \' \�1t7/• •� /' \( P�C6)0/ �iv�' \m i ` t\ r / \�. .._.Lv��' � �iu"'�-\/:•.\� .l �' �`l-J/)•��?;=J-:":.\I�l:•-::1J _.X• 10 .\,q /00 •�i� X0. _� r' / ...� '�" • - y...-: •.�.. '\�'' aV •," r. ..\—t '-\ •�a-� � i • 'tee i'- ° ,� �� �� �-',\ \ o � '© 1, '/ o l • .ao \ --' / -1 /' � '�.�� v L�,.��.w,,., _ \ � _-/ .� it I � � _ a \. •� � / �/: � it • , I r „� ��� \ •-. / i /^ 1�//� /� ° ✓- l 1 �� i=nwo November 6, 1990 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 .. ....._._._.___... ........... Frederick County Inspections Department P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Valley Industrial Park Dear Sirs, Enclosed per Frederick County instructions, for your comment are one set of the subdivision plans for the Valley Industrial Park to be constructed near Stephenson. I have also en- closed the Frederick County comment sheet for your use. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me hear from you. rely, David L. us man, E., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson Mr. Chris Tierney, Frederick County Planning Dept. file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 1 8 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 November 6, 1990 Frederick County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Valley Industrial Park Dear Sirs, Enclosed per Frederick County instructions, for your comment are two sets of the plans for the Valley Industrial Park located near Stephenson. I have also enclosed the Frederick Coun- ty comment sheet for your use. There is a fire hydrant located at the end of Route 837 and one is proposed at the new street. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me hear from you. c ely, David L. Bushman, P.E., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson Mr. Chris Tierney, Frederick County Planning Dept. file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 8 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. November 6, 1990 Donohue 11240 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Attention: Mr. Paul Bernard Dear Paul, 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 Re: Valley Industrial Park Enclosed per Frederick County instructions, for your comment are three sets of the subdivision plans for the Valley Industrial Park located near Stephenson in Frederick County. Also enclosed is the narrative for the Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Plan. This contains the design calculations for the two detention ponds that serve this develop- ment. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me hear from you. erely, avid . Bushman, P.E., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson Mr. Chris Tierney, Frederick County Planning Dept. file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 1 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 November 6, 1990 Frederick County Health Department P.O. Box 2056 Winchester, Va 22601 Attention:Mr. Herb Studer Re: Valley Industrial Park Dear Herb, Enclosed per Frederick County instructions, for your comment are one set of the subdivision plans for the Valley Industrial Park located on Route 837 near Stephenson. I have also enclosed the Frederick County comment sheet for your use. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me hear from you. 1 rely, David L. Bushman, P.E., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson Mr. Chris Tierney, Frederick County Planning Dept. file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL 5� November 6, 1990 SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 _ Virginia Department of Transportation P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Mr. Bob Childress Re: Valley Industrial Park Enclosed per Frederick County instructions, for your comment are four sets of the subdivision plans for the Valley Industrial Park located in Frederick County near Stephenson. I have also enclosed the Frederick County coment sheet and the trip generation calculations for your use. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me hear from you. S' elyius v i d L.man, P.E., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson Mr. Chris Tierney, Frederick County Planning Dept. file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL SHENANDOAH ENGINEERING LTD. 131 South Main Street, Woodstock, Virginia 22664 P.O. Box 462 703-459-4958 Fax 459-2957 _...___....____._.................... _...... _.._................. _... __._........................ ....... ....................................................... _.__.._._._.___................... .......__.....__.........._......_.._._._........,_.......,.._.........._.._,. November 6, 1990 Frederick County Sanitation Authority P.O. Box 618 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attention:Mr. Wellington Jones, P.E. Re: Valley Industrial Park Dear Wendy, Enclosed per Frederick County instructions, for your comment are two sets of the subdivision plans for the Valley Industrial Park located on Route 837 near Stephenson. I have also enclosed the Frederick County comment sheet for your use. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please let me hear from you. e4dushman, l aviP. ., Shenandoah Engineering, Ltd. enclosures cc: Mr. Orville Smoot, Valley Fertilizer, Mt. Jackson Mr. Chris Tierney, Frederick County Planning Dept. file CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL