HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Correspondence Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-10-05ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklinpe.com
October 5, 2018
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Rivanna Village Phase 2 (Blocks D, F, G, I, and J) Final Site Plan – 2nd Submittal (SDP2018-31)
Dear Chris,
Please accept for review and approval the attached revised final site plans which attempt to address
all of the agency initial plan review comments. This letter is intended to accompany the revised plans
and serve as written response to the comment letter dated July 11, 2018. Each reviewer that
provided comments will receive revised plans and response letter directly.
Planning (Christopher Perez)
1. [[ZMA201300012 Proffers] All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers.
Response: Noted.
Final: Comment still relevant.
2. [COD Sec 3.3] Lot Regulation/Setbacks. Replace the setbacks listed and depicted throughout
the plan with the new setback chart (provided below) which was approved by the BOS on
December 6, 2017. Please do not reword anything in the chart, merely provide the exact chart
on the site plan. Additionally, revise the setbacks and buildable area depicted on all lots
throughout the plan utilizing these new setbacks and the various factors provided in the chart.
Response: Provided chart added to the plans.
Final: Comment addressed.
3. [COD Sec 3.4] Building Height. Throughout the site plan label the maximum height of each
structure by block that is being platted. See table 3.4 of the Code of Development as each block
has different heights permitted based on the use. Example: Block G is permitted a maximum
building height of 40 feet.
Response: The maximum building height table from the COD has been added to the plans.
Final: Comment addressed.
4. [[COD Sec 7.1] Parking. The only portion of the development not subject to the 20% maximum
rule for parking provided in excess of required parking, is that for Block D, as a waiver was
granted during the rezoning for this block. All other blocks shall meet the 20% maximum for
parking provided.
Response: It is our opinion that the “20% maximum” rule is only intended to apply to parking
lots, or “parking areas having four or more spaces” per 4.12.2(1). For instance, every single
family detached home with a two-car garage and a one or two-car driveway would violate this
20% rule by providing 4 parking spaces where only 2 are required. Similarly, it is also our opinion
that the 20% rule is not intended to restrict on-street parking. Plentiful on-street parking is
beneficial to NMD neighborhoods, providing for both required and non-required guest parking
and parking for uses such as the park and other non-residential uses. Our parking table is
intended to provide assurance that there is adequate parking on a majority of the residential lots
and that there is adequate room for guest parking on the streets. To help eliminate the
appearance that the site is over parked, the parking table has been revised to eliminate garage
spaces on the single family detached lots. Parking requirement calculations for the park have
been added to the plan and the location of this parking has been noted. Required parking
calculations for any other non-residential use will be provided once the use is proposed and the
calculations will be based on the proposed use.
Final: The fire station parking lot in Block K is being proposed to serve the public park.
As such this parking area shall be included on this final site plan. Permission shall be
granted from the Fire Station and the offsite parking agreement shall be recorded in the
Clerk’s Office documenting the terms of this agreement. Based on existing conditions
the parking lot will need to be upgraded to meet current parking lot standards. Also,
provide the required parking study for a public recreation area (this should be
developed in consultation with Dan Mahon of Parks and Recreation). The number of
required spaces for the park shall be determined by the zoning administrator in
consideration of the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures
either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,
peak parking demands, and other relevant information.
Response: Please find the attached parking study for consideration by the Zoning Administrator
to determine the required parking spaces for the Park. While the Fire Department has already
agreed to allow their parking lot to be utilized for park parking as memorialized in the Code of
Development, we are demonstrating that the park parking requirements, pending zoning
approval, can be met on-street around the perimeter of the park. We have a couple of questions
that may determine if we move pursue the use of the firehouse parking. If the Code of
Development states that the Fire Department has agreed to share it parking lot, then what
further steps would be required? Would this need to go to the BOS? And finally, what disqualifies
the fire house parking lot as meeting current parking lot standards?
5. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 9] Affordable Housing. Designate which lots are the affordable units
throughout the final site plan and final plat. Also, under the chart provide the full statement that
reads: “The owner shall contribute cash to the County in the amount of Twenty-One Thousand,
One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($21,150) instead of constructing each required affordable unit. Such
payment shall be made after completion of the final inspection and prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for any such unit for which payment in lieu of constructing affordable
housing is made.”
Response: Note added to chart. Blocks G and I are the locations set aside for affordable units.
The owner shall determine and notify the County which unit(s) in a particular Block is (are) to be
subject to the affordable housing criteria prior to transferring ownership of any lot within that
Block. The owner reserves the right to contribute the stipulated cash amount in lieu of
constructing an affordable unit. The affordable housing requirement may be met through a
combination of affordable unit construction and monetary contributions.
Final: Comment not adequately addressed, applicant response to this condition is not adequate.
On the plan identify the lots which will be the ADUs.
Response: ADU lots identified on plans.
6. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 2] Cash Proffer for Capital Improvement. The required cash
contribution for each unit shall be dictated by the proffer and is required to be paid after
completion of final inspection and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each
unit.
Response: Noted.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: No action required for plan approval.
7. ZMA201300012 Proffer 7] Rte 250 Landscape Buffer and Right of Way Dedication. Label,
dimension, and depict the required 70’ reservation zone and the 30’ landscape buffer along Rte
250. These improvements shall be reserved for public use and dedicated upon the request of
the County. The developer shall preserve the existing vegetation in this area as described in the
proffer.
Response: Requested dimensions and labels added to the plan. One point of clarification is that
this area is proffered as a “reservation” zone not a “preservation” zone. The clearing, grading,
and utilities shown on the plans are permitted. The proffered 30’ landscape buffer is intended to
mitigate lost vegetation in the 70’ reservation zone.
Final: Comment not addressed. The Route 250 Landscape Buffer and Right-of-way dedication
shall be appropriately labeled and dimensioned throughout the plan. Currently this area is
labeled as “Amenity Space”; however, this is not an acceptable use of this land. Additionally, it is
also labeled “SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space Easement”; however, this land shall not be used for
this purpose either. The rezoning calls out the permitted uses in this area which can take place
on the land until it is dedicated to the County upon demand for Rte 250 widening. Specifically,
landscaped open space, signage, utilities. Remove the above uses from this land.
On the plan provide a note for this area: “The 70’ reservation zone and 30’ landscape buffer are
reserved for public use and dedication upon the demand of the County.” “The maintenance and
upkeep of these areas and their landscaping shall be the responsibility of the HOA until the
County demands dedication and accepts it.”
Response: We feel that labeling has been added to address this portion of the comment
adequately. We disagree that this area shall not be allowed to be counted as Amenity Space or
SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space for the project as these designations were always identified on
the rezoning documents. Further research and discussion will be required to address this
comment prior to approval.
8. [COD Sec 3.2(4)] Density Regulations. A minimum of 20,000 SF of non-residential uses shall be
in the development. On the plans label and depict where the required 20,000 SF non-residential
use shall be located and assure there is enough area for 20,000 SF. Revise the Density by Block
chart on sheet 4 to provide these calculations. Presumably these uses are to be in Block D.
Response: It is presumed that all of the required non-residential uses will be in the remainder of
Block D. The height restrictions for this Block envision construction to encompass several floors.
The plan labels have been revised to indicate this.
Final: The ‘Density by Block’ chart on sheet 4 contains incorrect density ranges for Blocks A, B, D,
E, I, and J. Also, revise note #1 of the chart to mention the 20,000 SF nonresidential
development in Block D.
Response: The Density by Block chart was re-checked, but no incorrect density ranges were
identified. At least now, the chart appears to be correct. The non-residential note was added.
9. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Throughout the plan label the park as
“Hereby Dedicated to the County of Albemarle for Public use as a Public Park”.
Response: Note added.
Final: Comment addressed.
10. COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Prior to final site plan approval the Director
of Parks and Recreation is required to approve a park plan, which shall ensure amenities
provided meet the needs of the County and satisfy the rezoning.
Response: Noted. We have been meeting and coordinating with Parks and Rec.
Final: Comment still relevant. Dan Mahon provided the applicant comments on the park plan.
Pending revisions of the final site plan to address these review comments.
Response: The plans have been revised to reflect the review meetings with Dan Mahon.
11. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The wetlands areas in the park shall be
labeled as “Preserved Wetland Areas”. Omit the reference to “Future Park” on sheet 4, as this
area shall be part of the park with phase 2 of development.
Response: Labels added/revised.
Final: Comment addressed.
12. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Depict, label, and design a maintenance
facility within the development for use by the County Parks and Recreation Department to
maintain the public park facility. Also, coordinate with Parks and Recreation Department on the
width and design of the trails throughout the park. Once coordinated provide ‘typicals’ of these
access ways. Prior to approval engineering and the Parks and Rec department shall sign off that
these trails are adequate for use by motorized maintenance vehicles.
Response: The maintenance facility was not part of the proffer. We have been meeting and
coordinating with Parks and Rec on all of these details and they will be added to the plans as we
progress. The maintenance facility will likely be located on the firehouse property.
Final: Comment is still relevant. These improvements shall be depicted on the site plan and
approved by Parks and Recreation prior to final site plan approval.
Response: The maintenance facility was not part of the proffer. We have been meeting and
coordinating with Parks and Rec on all of these details and they will be added to the plans as we
progress. The maintenance facility will likely be located on the firehouse property.
13. [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. The park has two required trail connects to
the Eastpark Road. Currently these are depicted as easements; however, this is not appropriate
and shall be revised to be fee simple dedications to the park. Depict, label, and dimension these
trail connections. Additionally, the trail connections shall be increased in width above the 6’
width as currently provided. These trail connections are to be utilized as access points for the
public as well as used by Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the public park facility.
Revise.
Response: The lot layout has been revised to provide the connections to the park as “fee
simple”. We are coordinating required trail widths with Parks and Rec.
Final: Comment addressed
14. [Comment] On either sheet 4 or 5 provide a table of content overlay, which labels which sheets
each section of various blocks can be found on.
Response: Added to Sheet 4 and to the key on the title block.
Final: Comment addressed
15. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Existing or platted streets. Label all streets (public) and all alleys (private).
Provide directional arrows on each alley to signify one way or two-way traffic. Also, provide the
widths of all streets.
Response: Labels indicating private/public added to each road label. Direction arrows added to
the parking lot in Block G. Widths of each street on each sheet that it is shown are on the layout
plan sheets.
Final: Comment addressed
16. [32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(i)] Alleys. On the plan provide a note that states no public agency, including
VDOT, and the County of Albemarle will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide
information on the plans that the alleys shall be dedicated and maintained by the HOA.
Response: There are no alleys proposed in Phase 2. The note was modified and applied to Cattail
Court which is a private road/access.
Final: Comment addressed
17. [ZMA201300012 Proffer 3] Route 250 and Eastern Entrance Improvements. “The owner shall
either construct left and right turn lanes on Route 250 at the eastern entrance to the property or
bond these improvements prior to approval of the first site plan or subdivision plat for the
development…”
Response: Bond has been posted.
Final: A road plan for the above referenced entrance improvements and all the roads in phase 2
shall be submitted and approved prior to final site plan approval. Staff is aware that the entrance
improvements onto Rte 250 are currently bonded; however, no road plan was ever submitted or
approved for these improvements. One is required. This 1st review of the final site plan does not
cover a review of the improvements along Rte 250; rather, such heavy lifting will be done on the
road plan and it’s review. Once submitted and reviewed the road plan and the final site plan shall
match for these improvements.
Response: VDOT has been reviewing and providing comments, requirements, and
recommendations on the Route 250 improvements and all of the neighborhood streets since all
of the road plan information is provide in the Initial and Final Site Plans. It is understood that a
separate Road Plan submittal will be required to be reviewed and approved but it will largely be a
repeat set of the Final Site Plans. Bridge details will be included in the Road Plans which will
require additional, heavy VDOT review.
18. [Code of Development Section 4.2] Covenants to Provide Architectural Review Committee. Prior
to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for Rivanna Village shall be reviewed/approved by the County Attorney’s office
in consultation with County Planning staff. The above document shall be approved by the County
and recorded by the developer prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval. The
DB page reference information of this recorded document shall be noted on the final site plan
and/or final subdivision plat.
Response: We believe this to be complete.
Final: Comment not addressed. While this requirement was addressed for phase I, per
conversations with the County Attorney it is not addressed for phase II. Please submit a
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Rivanna Village Phase II.
Response: The documents in question will be revised to include Phase II and submitted for
review and approval separately.
19. [32.6.2(j)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 is required with
the final site plan.
Response: Landscape plans are included.
Final: Comment addressed.
20. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Provide the maximum footprint for all proposed buildings.
Response: The building setbacks shown on the Layout Plan represent the maximum footprints
for buildings. We have worked very closely with the building contractor and used their
construction plans to create the building footprints shown for the product they intend to build.
Final: Comment not addressed.
Response: Maximum building footprint square footages have been added to all townhouse units
on the plan.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for
these units? If each lot is going to have its own trash container for curbside pickup, where are
these containers going to be stored when not in use?
Response: Daily household trash will be handled by individual toter cans for each unit. On units
with garages, the trash cans will be stored in the garage. For the units without garages, in Block
G, a dumpster, pad, and enclosure are shown on the plans.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.7.4.2] Easements for stormwater management facilities. Provide access to the stormwater
management facility. Also, provide an easement over the facility and the access.
Response: Another firm is preparing the E&S/SWM plans for the project. We are coordinating
closely with them to show the easements to match those plans.
Final: Comment addressed
23. [32.8.2, 14-311] Infrastructure improvement plans. Road plans must be approved and built or
bonded prior to approval. Fire and Rescue has commented that the road widths are not
adequate for on street parking. If on street parking is to be provided assure the roads are
widened and that the spaces are dimensioned and labeled.
Response: It should be clarified that Fire and Rescue requested that we ensure that road widths
are adequate for on street parking. We have verified that the road dimensions match the typical
road sections which show adequate room for parking on one or both sides, depending on the
street. The on-street parking zones have been identified on Sheet 4. These zones are limited by
the required intersection sight distance lines which are also shown.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: We have verified that the road dimensions match the typical road sections which
show adequate room for parking on one or both sides, depending on the street. The on-street
parking zones have been identified on Sheet 4. These zones are limited by the required
intersection sight distance lines which are also shown. Fire and Rescue did not have any
objection during the latest plan review.
24. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.7] Screening. Proposed SWM Facilities shall be screened from the adjacent
residential lots.
Response: Screening of SWM facilities is included on Landscape Plan.
Final: Comment addressed.
25. [32.7.2.1] Vehicular Access to Site. Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and
constructed as required by the standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. VDOT
approval of the entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site plan and/or final plat
approval.
Response: Noted. The final site plan addresses VDOT comments from the initial plan.
Final: Comment still relevant.
Response: These plans include revisions to address VDOT review comments.
26. [Comment] Provide the dimensions of proposed easements and whether they are to be publicly
or privately maintained.
Response: Dimensions of easements and private/public notation added.
Final: Comment addressed.
27. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public
use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the
facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Response: Note added to Sheet 2.
Final: Comment addressed.
28. [Comment] On sheet 1 provide the site plan number and when submitted ensure it is labeled as
Final Site Plan. Please omit Road Plan from the title.
Response: The final site plan will receive a new number. It will be added when assigned. “Road
Plan” remains in the title for now as a majority of the review and approval pertains to the roads
infrastructure approval.
Final: On the plan provide the following SDP#: “SDP2018-31”.
Response: The new site plan application tracking number has been added to Cover Sheet.
29. [Comment] [14-409] Coordination & Extension. All public streets within a subdivision shall be
extended and constructed to the abutting property lines to provide vehicular and pedestrian
interconnections to future development on adjoining lands, terminating within the subdivision
with a temporary turnaround. The three cul-de-sac streets that shall meet the above requirement
are: Mossy Rock Road, Terrapin Trace, and Lazy Branch Lane. Please depict and label the right
of way dedications to the property lines, reservation of the areas are appropriate at this time
through the following note: “Area reserved for future right-of-way dedication upon demand of the
County.”
Response: Notes and depictions added as requested.
30. [Comment] Label the land use of the hatched area adjacent to and fronting lots I-59, I-60, I-61, I-
62, and J-48. What does the hatching signify? Hopefully it is a reservation zone for future right-
of-way dedication, if so, labeled it “Area reserved for future right-of-way dedication upon demand
of the County.”
Response: You are correct, notes and depictions added to clarify as requested.
31. [Comment] [14-303] Cattail Court needs to be modified to a “30’ private street easement”. This
private street is being relied upon for frontage of the townhomes.
Response: Plans modified as requested.
32. [Comment] [4.12] Parking. Label and dimension the two required parking spaces per lot for Lots
F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, and F12. Additionally, on the site plan, with arrows, locate the guest
parking spaces for these lots (staff assumes they are along Sedgwick Lane).
Response: Labels and dimensioning added as requested. Guest parking can be accommodated
on Sedgwick Lane or Lazy Branch Lane.
33. [Comment] [4.12.5, 4.12] Location of Parking Areas. All parking spaces shall be established on
the same lot with the primary use to which it is appurtenant, except as authorized by section
4.12.8. Lots G-11, G-25, G-26, G-27, G-41, G-42 are not provided 2 parking spaces on each lot.
Nor are they provided guest parking spaces. Additionally, none of the full spaces are
encompassed on the lot; rather, every space is a quarter outside of the lot. Block G is lacking the
minimum number of required parking spaces.
To correct this staff suggests you revise the parking area in Block G to no longer be on the
individual lots, but instead locate them in congregate parking bays within a parking easements
for the entire block. If you go this route the guest parking space requirement no longer applies. If
you modify this, ensure the lots continue to meet the minimum lot size of 1,300 SF. Also, provide
an instrument ensuring continuation of off-site parking shall be recorded prior to final site plan
approval.
If you do not modify parking as recommended, the required parking spaces and the required
guest spaces will need to be provided for all lots in this block.
Response: We chose to address this as suggested in your second paragraph above. An
instrument recording the parking agreement will be provided separately for review and approval.
Is there a template that you could provide?
34. [Comment] [4.12] Parking. Which townhome lots are the 21 lots you believe have a parking
deficiency? Their location and access to on-street parking will determine if their parking is met
through this alternative. If it is Block G you speak of, on-street parking will not suffice because it
is separated by a public road.
Response: Lots F7-F11 and Lots I48-I62 require guest parking. Lots F7-F11 require 2 guest
spaces which are available on either Sedgewick Lane or Lazy Branch Lane. Lots I48-I62 require
4 guest spaces which are available nearby on Terrapin Trace.
35. [Comment] [4.12.6] Parking Requirements. Dimension all parking spaces.
Response: Additional dimensioning added.
36. [Comment] [32.5.2(n)] Trails. Throughout the plan label and dimension the trail and the trail
easements (most are but some are not). Also, provide a cutsheet for trail design specifications.
Response: Additional labeling added and a trail section detail added as well.
37. [Comment] [4.12] Parking. Provide column titles for the parking calculations chart.
Response: Parking table display has been corrected.
38. [Comment] [COD Sec 8] Open Space/Greenspace Preservation. Please work with Parks and
Recreation to determine the appropriate method to separate and distinguish private residential
lots from the public park (either fencing, berm, evergreen landscaping, or a combination). Prior
to final site plan approval please depict and label the solution.
Response: See attached “Distinguishing between Park Land and Private Property” document.
39. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the
plan. Their comments attached.
Response: Response to al SRC reviewers that provided comments is provided in this letter.
40. Additional Engineering Site Plan Review comments
Response: Addressed under Engineering review comments.
Engineering (John Anderson)
1. VSMP Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
a. Provide VSMP Plan that meets requirements of 17-401. Response: VSMP Plan for Phase 2
has been approved. Reference to prior approved WPO added to grading sheets.
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities. Response: Thought this was
established as part of VSMP Plan approval. May need further work.
c. Provide receipt of recordation of SWM Facility Deed of Dedication. Response: Not sure of the
status of this.
d. Ref. prior-approved WPO# if prior approved plans are relied upon. Response: Reference to
prior approved WPO added to grading sheets.
e. Provide Mitigation for stream buffer and wetland impacts. Response: Approved VSMP Plan for
Phase 2 included mitigation for stream buffer impacts.
2. Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
Response: Road Plan application forthcoming. The Road Plan will essentially be a copy of the site
plans as all of the required information for road plans has been in the road plans all along and
VDOT has been providing road plan review comments. One additional item that the road plans
will include is bridge design which will likely need to be reviewed by VDOT in Culpeper.
3. Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
Response: Trail detail added to the plans.
4. [Sheet 2], Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
Response: Note corrected.
5. [Sheet 2], Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
Response: Note corrected
6. [Sheet 4]: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
Response: Wetland and stream buffer labels added.
7. A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
Response: Road Plan application forthcoming. The Road Plan will essentially be a copy of the site
plans as all of the required information for road plans has been in the road plans all along and
VDOT has been providing road plan review comments. One additional item that the road plans
will include is bridge design which will likely need to be reviewed by VDOT in Culpeper
8. [Sheet 4;: Provide calculations for ADT. ADT appears inconsistent; for example: Cattail Court 42
Attached units (Gl -G42), ADT =200, while Terrapin Trace 14 Attached units (148-162) ADT
=200. Mossy Rock Rd. 18 single-family (J39-J57) ADT =100 appears low, while Meander Way
(12 single family units, 135-147) ADT =100, is more reasonable. Reference ITE Trip Generation
Manual, most recent volume, when calculating ADT.
Response: The original ADT/street provide came directly from the TIA that was prepared for the
project. However, since the TIA report, the unit count/mix per block has been altered slightly so
the listed ADTs did get slightly skewed based on the current plan. I’ve adjusted the ADTs to bring
them into agreement with the current plan and unit mix.
9. [Sheet 6]: Rt. 250 Improvements single lane addition typical section appears to indicate 2" SM-
12.5A tapers to zero thickness (O") at edge of 8' paved shoulder; confirm consistent with VDOT
standards.
Response: VDOT requested that the paving materials in the sections “daylight” at the shoulder.
The typical section that you refer to had been revised to address this but it was still incorrect. The
sections have now been revised to what we believe to be the intent of VDOT request.
10. [Sheet 8] / CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure: Ref. 2016 VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications
for pre-cast arch requirements /302.03.b.
(b) Precast Drainage Structures: Submittal of designs for precast items included in the Road and
Bridge Standards will not be required provided fabrication is in accordance with the Standards.
Submittal of designs for precast box culverts produced under the VDOT Precast Concrete Quality
Assurance Program by a manufacturer on the Materials Division's Approved Products List 34 will
not be required provided the Contractor submits a certification that the item shall be fabricated
in accordance with the preapproved design drawings.
Requests for approval of a precast design shall include detailed plans and supporting
computations that have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer having at least 5
years of experience in structural design of precast structures or components proposed and
licensed to practice engineering in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unless otherwise specified,
concrete
Response: Previous submittal included Contech arch bridge details and specifications as an
example for pricing by the contractor. While the details are similar to what we expect, they do not
apply to this project. Sorry for the confusion. Contech is currently working to provide the
appropriate plans and calculations package for review and approval by the County and VDOT. It
will likely be included with the Road Plan application to the County an VDOT. Details in question
have been removed from set to eliminate further confusion.
11. Provide high definition images with legible text details for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch
Structure detail. Most text is illegible.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
12. Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure
is of particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
13. Provide PE-seal for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure detail. Site Plan PE-seal is
insufficient unless Site Plan Professional Engineer holds PE certification in structural
engineering discipline, and seals each CONTECH detail on sheet 8, not simply plan sheet 8.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
14. Provide structural details, including plan /profile view with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
headwall. Detail on this sheet indicates 'supplied by others.' Furnish plan /profile structural
detail sufficient to evaluate adequacy and integrity of concrete headwall design.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
15. Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced
concrete arch footing.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
16. Albemarle County Building Inspections Division permit may be required. Applicant is encouraged
to coordinate with Building Inspections on building permit requirements for proposed 34' -1" x 9'-
2".
Response: Noted.
17. Note: Notes on schematic of proposed Contech detail (top right comer, sheet 8) are problematic:
"Footing dimensions and details shown are conceptual only"; "Final dimensions and details to be
furnished by the Project Engineer"; "Foundation reinforcing to be determined." These notes
indicate final design is to be performed by Project Engineer, relative to arch footings. Provide:
footing dimensions and calculations supporting design for this site and location (soil type, dead
/live load, etc.); final dimensions /details; and foundation reinforcing details. Provide
calculations that support footing design.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
18. Details reference single radius arch: This does not appear to be a single radius structure; check
label.
Response: See previous response regarding bridge details. They have been removed for now.
19. [Sheets 9-19]: Base sight lines on design speed (posted speed limit + 5MPH). Example: sight line
at Int. Moose Lane and Lazy Branch Lane would appear to be 335'. Check /revise sight lines, as
needed.
Response: The base sight lines for all of the proposed roads are based on design speed of 25
MPH, not posted speed, so I believe they are correct. For existing roads such as at the Route 250
intersection, VDOT requires using the posted speed + 5, or 60 MPH.
20. Sheets 9-19 /CG-12: Ramps at perpendicular crossings are shown as diagonal crossing ramps .
Revise per VDOT standard
Response: Corrected as suggested per our meeting and your sketches.
21. Sheet 11: Provide Auto-tum figs. /driveway geometry, multiple lots, including 1-60, -61, -62, -64,
J-1 (sheet 18), etc. Propose smooth curves as opposed to angles which necessitate off-
pavement turns (Also item #36)
Response: All of the awkward driveway configurations have been corrected/improved to provide
smooth curves as recommended. Static turning templates were used to verify the improved
design. With the improved layout, I do not believe that auto-turn exhibits are necessary any
longer. Please let me know.
22. Sheet 14: Street Name signs are proposed for atypical locations at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and
Moose Lane, and at Int. Lazy Branch Lane and Cattail Court. Revise to appear in conventional
location on street with stop sign. Defer to VDOT comments for public roads.
Response: Corrected as suggested per our meeting.
23. Sheet 14: Recommend relocate street name /speed limit and any required signs from radial
sections of roadway to tangent sections, wherever possible.
Response: Corrected as suggested.
24. Sheet 14: Revise Matchline (right margin) to read sheet 15.
Response: Corrected.
25. Sheet 15: Provide sight line easement on Lot 1-4.
Response: Sight line easement added.
26. Sheet 16/18, 18/19 (at Matchline) - Label road radii, Lazy Branch Lane. Review horizontal road
curves. Label all horizontal road curve radii in plan view.
Response: Missing road radii labels added.
27. Sheet 20: Revise value in parenthesis to match design speed (60, not 25). Check profiles
captions.
Response: Corrected.
28. Sheets 20/21: Profile ref. to Butterfield and Park may not match proposed road names. Please
confirm.
Response: Corrected. Moose Lane renamed to Butterfield Lane.
29. Ensure arch spans on Terrapin Trace (sheet 24) and Lazy Branch Lane (between Mossy Rock
Rd. and Moose Ln.; sheet 25), the two 8' x 4' and the 4' x 2' double box culvert (sheet 26) pass
the 25-year storm event without roadway flooding. Portions of development have no outlet save
crossing one or more of these culverts. Recent local flooding lends particular impetus to
conservative design.
Response: All box culvert designs analysis increased to 25 year storm check. See attached
calculations.
30. Sheet 28: Provide paved concrete channel (and detail) between two pipes south of Rt. 250 to
prevent nuisance ponding. Fall between outfall of one and inlet of the other is only 0.5% (0.12'
over 23.5'±)
Response: Paved concrete channel added as suggested.
31. Sheet 28: Provide drainage easement for storm pipe, NE comer lot 1-31.
Response: Drainage easement added.
32. Sheet 32: Provide drainage easement for storm line between SD 2J3-1 and SD 2J3.
Response: Drainage easement added.
33. Sheet 34: Proposed forest /open space easement 1' from edge of basketball court and on a
portion of tennis court playing surface is ambitious. While proposed Forest /Open Space
easements are generally consistent with DEQ Training Module 4, Engineering cannot approve
proposed easements in such close proximity to developed features (sports courts, lots, etc.).
Revise, as needed.
Sheet 34 - Revise proposed Forest /Open Space Easement located interior to Lot lines. Do not
show Forest /Open Space Easements on any portion of any lot unless Owner intends to convey
lots with portions that may never be turf or impervious but must remain open space /forest, in
perpetuity.
Response: Easement adjusted as needed on the site plans. An amendment to the WPO plan will
be required to “match up” the revised site plans and the ESC/SWM Plans and to incorporate any
required revisions to the BMP easement.
34. Sheet 36: Provide yard drains for drainage across 3 or more lots (ref. design at Lots J-12 thru J-
14). Ref. Drainage Plan checklist. Examine all grading /utility plan sheets; provide yard drains
with plan/profile data including invert in/out, rim, and profile: diameter, length, slope, etc.
Provide drainage computations /tables - consider spread, Q10 capacity. Note: Min. pipe
diameter is 12".
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots 1-32 thru 1-36 (sheets 28/32); 1-48 thru 1-57 (backyards,
sheet 29); J-39 thru J-44 (front yards, sheets 33/35)
Response: Plans revised to incorporate suggested items to address this concern.
35. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc, unless intentional.
Response: Grades lines in question corrected/adjusted.
36. Sheet 37: Provide Auto-tum diagrams that show a 2nd vehicle may park next to an already-
parked vehicle: Lots J-20, -21, -22. Revise design to ensure two vehicles may enter /exit and
park in space fronting dwellings (this sheet, and elsewhere).
* Note: Albemarle has received complaint concerning negative experience based on unrealistic
design driveway access, similar to proposed. Provide Auto-tum figure for any lot where design
configuration is similar or problematic.
Response: All of the awkward driveway configurations have been corrected/improved to provide
smooth curves as recommended. Static turning templates were used to verify the improved
design. With the improved layout, I do not believe that auto-turn exhibits are necessary. Please
let me know.
37. Sheet 37: Proposed Entrance, Lot J-20 does not work; revise such that a car may enter/exit
without exceptional maneuvers, without dropping off curb. Albemarle has received severe
complaint post construction relating to misalignment of apron and driveway edge. Propose
alignment similar to blue line. Examine all entrance aprons/all sheets, especially in cul-de-sacs
and curves (sheet 36, Lots J-1, J-2, for example). Revise as necessary.
Response: Proposed entrance alignment and width corrected as suggested.
38. Sheet 37: Provide off-site temporary construction easement required to grade adjacent property
lines.
Response: Cul de sac and grading shifted to provide at least 5’ from the property boundary to the
limits of work required.
39. Sheet 40: Sanitary Sewer Aerial Crossing -provide a Floodplain Development Permit Application
to address requirements of Code 18-30.3 if development is proposed in FEMA Zone A /AE
floodplain.
Response: Note changed. Not crossing a FEMA floodplain.
40. Sheet 63: Revise d/h column values, Inlets in Sump.
Response: Table corrected.
41. Sheets 64-68: Label each pipe. Provide pipe structure numbers.
Response: Pipe labels added to profiles.
42. Sheets 64-68: Engineering strongly recommends that storm sewer pipe in fill sections be RCP.
Any HDPE or RCP pipe with As-built slope < 0.5% will be rejected by Albemarle, and will need to
be replaced at Owner's expense. Note, for example:
a) '2F' profile:
i. 114.54 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.75% (placed on 5' fill).
ii. 40.86 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.88% (placed on 3' fill).
b) '2G' Profile: 50.94 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.75% (4-5' fill).
c) '2H' Profile: Recommend revise grade of 38.84 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.51%.
d) '2P' Profile: 82.23 LF of 15" HDPE @ 0.91%.
e) '2Q' Profile: 82.46 LF of 18" HDPE @ 0.73%
f) '2M' profile:
i. 144.84 LF of24" HDPE @ 2.74%.
ii. 52.22 LF of24" HDPE @ 3.03%.
iii. 31.84 LF of24" HDPE @ 0.94%.
iv. 50.08 LF of 15" HDPE @ 5.73%.
v. '2S' profile: 164.95 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.81% (5-6' fill).
Response: Storm drain profiles revised to significantly decrease the quantity of storm drain and
structures required to be constructed on fill. Additionally, construction and inspection notes
added to the profile sheets.
43. Sheet 67: Str. SD 2S3, 2S4 (height str. >12') - provide label and detail for VDOT SL-1 (safety
slab).
Response: SL-1 label and detail added.
44. Sheet 67: Revise structure label SD S24 to read 2S4.
Response: Corrected.
45. Sheet 68: Provide box culvert endwalls based on VDOT standards. Provide VDOT Std. for Modular
Block retaining wall as EW, if such exists. Show VDOT Std. EW on plans. Provide and show Wing
Wall Std. on plans. Ref. profile of proposed box culverts at Lazy Branch Ln Sta. 31+63 and
26+40.
Response: All of the box culvert endwalls will be custom, modular block walls designed by Circeo
Engineering. Unfortunately, there is no VDOT standard to modular wall. The Circeo wall plans will
be provided once complete.
46. Sheet 68: Specify minimum slope of each proposed box culvert. Albemarle recognizes need for
invert elevations to be adjusted per verification of stream inverts.
Response: A note requiring a minimum slope of 0.50% has been added to the box culvert
profiles.
47. Provide Note stating: "All fill material supporting roadways, embankments, and structures within
the right-of-way shall consist of Type I Select Material as defined in Section 207 of the 2016
VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications and must be placed in successive uniform lifts not
exceeding 8" and compacted to 95% of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
D698."
Response: Construction and inspection notes added to the profile sheets.
48. MH Structures SD 2F2, 2F3, 20 2, 2K2, 2L2, 2M9, 2M l0 , 2Ml 1, 2M12, 2R l -B, 2S-11 are
proposed in fill sections and require inspection by qualified personnel reporting to the Engineer
that installation is per VDOT specification, item #47.
Response: Construction and inspection notes added to the profile sheets
49. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, General Notes on plans (107.00; Spec. Ref. 302 /303 -.PDF p. 112 of
VDOT on-line CSectionlO0)
50. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method "A" on plans (107.01 -p. 113 of
CSection 100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
51. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 -p. 115 of CSection
100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
52. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Bedding and Backfill /Box Culverts, Method " A" on plans (107.04 - p.
116 of CSection 100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
53. Provide VDOT Std. DSB-1, Bedding for Inlet, MH, and JB on plans (106.15, p. 111 of CSection
100).
Response: Detail added to plans.
54. Provide VDOT 2016 VDOT R&B Spec. Note (303.04(g)):
(g) Backfilling Openings Made for Structures: Backfill shall be suitable material removed for the
structure, although the Engineer may require that backfill material be obtained from a source
within the construction limits entirely apart from the structure, or other approved material. The
opening to be backfilled shall be dewatered prior to backfilling. Backfill shall not be placed
against-or over cast-in-place box culverts or other structures until the top concrete-slab
section(s) has been in place 14 days, exclusive of days on which the average high-low ambient
temperature is below 40 degrees F in the shade or until the concrete control cylinder(s) has
attained a compressive strength equal to 93 percent of the 28-day minimum design
compressive strength.
Also:
Box culverts shall not be opened to construction equipment traffic until concrete has attained
100 percent of the 28-day design minimum compressive strength and has a backfill cover of at
least 4.0 feet. The minim um height of backfill cover required to protect pipe culverts from
construction equipment shall be in accordance with Standard Drawing PC-1 for the type and size
specified.
Response: Notes added to profiles.
55. Sheet C10 includes a proposed 200’ taper and 200’ right turn lane on U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. While
Road Plan/s for this and other portions of public roads and privates streets (if any) internal to
the development will present design information to be reviewed by County, VDOT, and others, at
first glance, a 200’ taper may be insufficient for a primary arterial roadway (55 MPH limit).
Design for a similar development entrance located on U.S. primary arterial Rt. 29 with identical
design /posted limits serves preliminary indication (prior to County review of traffic impact
analysis) that proposed 200’ taper to 200’ right turn lane may require revision to ensure safe
movement on Rt. 250, EBL, at current or future ADT projections. Please reference TIA, by date
and title, that supports 200’ taper and 200’ turn lane for U.S. Rt. 250 EBL. As stated elsewhere,
please submit road plans as required by ordinance.”
Response: The proposed 200’ x 200’ turn lane and taper are in excess of the recommendations
of the approved TIA, which suggested only a full width and taper and no storage. The proposed
improvements as shown are in accordance with VDOT review to date.
56. No portion of the 70’ reservation zone or 30’ landscape buffer that may in the future be
dedicated to Albemarle County, upon demand, for widening of Rt. 250 may be placed in SWM
/BMP Forest /Open Space Easement. Revise calculations or water quality compliance strategies
that may at present rely on buffer areas that cannot with any assurance be preserved in
perpetuity as forest /open space.”
Response: We disagree that this area shall not be allowed to be counted as Amenity Space or
SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space for the project as these designations were always identified on
the rezoning documents. Further research and discussion will be required to address this
comment prior to approval.
Fire and Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
No comments provided as of July 11, 2018. (Plan submitted May 4, 2018)
Response: No action required.
CDD Inspections (Michael Dellinger)
No objections to the Final Site Plan.
Response: No action required.
VDH (Alan Mazurowski)
No objections to the Final Site Plan.
Response: No action required.
E911 (Elise Kiewra)
No objections to the Final Site Plan.
Response: No action required, however, after further investigation on-site it has been determined
that the neighborhood entrance road off of Route 250 does not line up with Moose Lane. We request
Butterfield Lane as a road name replacement of Moose Lane in our neighborhood.
ARB (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. Show the boundaries of the 30' buffer on the landscape plans.
Response: Boundaries and labels added/improved.
2. Add ornamental trees and large shrubs in the landscape buffer.
Response: Ornamental trees added but shrubs were not added because we did not feel that shrubs
would not be visible that far away from Route 250.
3. Distribute the trees and shrubs in the landscape buffer to fully populate the 30' depth and to
achieve a natural appearance.
Response: Landscape plan revised to better distribute plantings throughout width of buffer.
4. On the landscape plan, label the existing wooded area to remain and include notes identifying
the character of the wooded area
Response: Request information added.
5. Revise the plan to remove all conflicts between grading and wooded area to remain.
Response: Conflicts corrected.
6. Add the standard plant health note to the landscape plans: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs
shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of
the plant."
Response: Note added to Landscape Plans.
Please provide:
1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision
dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If
changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also.
Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review
and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your
revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution.
Parks and Rec (Dan Mahon)
No written comments provided as of July 11, 2018. (Plan submitted May 4, 2018)
Response: Plans reflect suggested revisions and requests provided by staff at meetings.
VDOT (Adam Moore/Justin Deel)
1. Oversized structures, such as the proposed arch bridges, will only be approved if a maintenance
agreement is recorded with the County of Albemarle. If VDOT is to maintain these structures,
their sizes must be hydraulically justified.
Response: As part of the rezoning process, a detailed development plan was created in order to
begin the process of obtaining the necessary environmental permits for intermittent stream and
wetland impacts from the Army Corps of Engineers and Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality for the project to proceed. The previous rezoning/development effort failed to do this
prior to County approvals which resulted in a master plan of development that could not be
permitted with the Corps and DEQ. As a result, the previous development endeavor collapsed.
After several plan iterations and meetings with the Corps and DEQ representatives, we landed on
an acceptable plan of development that used a combination of on-line/off-line stormwater
management facilities and culvert/spanned stream crossings to minimize intermittent stream
disturbance to below 1,000 linear feet. To bolster support of the rezoning request, the
Corps/DEQ Joint Permit was obtained prior to approval by the Board of Supervisors. The three
proposed, stream span crossings shown on the first submittal of the Final Plans were required
for compliance with the environmental permit and were in accordance with the Application Plan
and Development Plan Concept documents presented to the Board of Supervisors. These spans
were proposed to be accomplished using metal arches with concrete strip footers designed by
Contech. Due to the elimination of one proposed BMP in an existing stream, we feel that we
confident that we will be able to apply the allowable stream disturbance to one of the road
crossings and we have converted on of the arch bridge crossings to a box culvert. A second arch
bridge crossing span length was able to be reduced due to the realignment of Lazy Branch Lane.
The sizing of the arch spans is not necessarily hydraulically justified, but rather environmentally
justified. The Developer would like to begin review of the required Maintenance Agreement.
2. Regardless of maintenance, arch bridges, box culverts, and retaining walls that are located
within the ROW or support structures within the ROW must be approved by the Culpeper District
Structure & Bridge Section, as well as the Culpeper District Hydraulics Section prior to permit
issuance. A maintenance agreement with the County/HOA for retaining walls located in or
supporting structures within the ROW should be recorded prior to street acceptance. Comments
from the Structure & Bridge and Hydraulics Sections will be forwarded as they are received.
Response: The Developer would like to begin review of the required Maintenance Agreement.
3. Also concerning the arches, box culverts, and walls, a Geotechnical report is required including
borings at each end wall. Borings must be performed in accordance with Chapter 3 of the VDOT
Manual of Instructions (MOI).
Response: A Geotechnical report has been completed and provided to Contech for the design of
the stream spans. The report and engineering drawings will be provided for review by VDOT once
complete.
4. Excessive right-of-way should not be granted for the purposes of having utilities. The right-of-way
line should be I foot beyond the sidewalk.
Response: All right-of-ways have been revised to 1 foot beyond the back of sidewalk.
5. Where DI-3s are greater than 8 feet deep, DI-3AA, -3BB, or -3CC should be specified as
applicable and those details should be provided. The 9' requirement is for DI-2s.
Response: Thanks for the clarification. DI-3’s greater than 8’ deep have been revised to D-3AA,
3BB, and 3CC.
6. The Drainage Manual states that pipe velocities that exceed IO fps are to be avoided.
Response: Storm pipe slopes have been revised so that pipe velocities are below 10 fps in all
cases except for one.
7. Please show HGL's on profiles. Also provide HGL calculations, which should be consistent with
existing plans showing existing structures that are being tied in to.
Response: HGL’s have been added to the storm profiles. Calculations are included separately.
8. Typical Sections; pavement materials should be daylighted to the shoulder/slope, not abruptly
terminated as shown. The pavement materials on the typical sections do not appear to have
changed from the previous submission.
Response: Typical sections have been corrected as requested.
9. The Route 250 Improvements typical sections call for 2" of SM 9.5; as previously noted, the
maximum lift thickness for SM 9.5 is 1.5''.
Response: Paving sections have been revised to call for final surface of SM 9.5 and calculation
worksheet provided for verification.
10. Please provide the Route 250 Improvements on a single sheet, or two, fully dimensioned.
Response: See Sheet 8.
11. Why does the Lazy Branch Lane section decrease to 29 feet f/c to f/c? The roadway section
should remain consistent throughout. This decrease in section width is not reflected in the
typical sections.
Response: The Lazy Branch Lane road section reduces to 29’ between Steamer Drive and the
Cul de Sac because the traffic counts do not justify the wider section. The width transition is
gradual, occurring between the beginning and end of the sweeping radius between Block H and
Block I. The typical sections have been revised to reflect this variation in width.
12. Please callout arches on layout plans, including dimensions. Note that design plans for only one
of the three proposed arches has been provided.
Response: Callout of the arch bridges, including dimensions, has been added to the layout plans.
Engineered drawings for all arch bridges will be provided separately for review and approval. The
detail provided in the previous submittal was provided as an example for context and pricing. It
did not apply to this project directly and has been removed from the plans.
13. It would be preferable to aid in and quicken the review process if the plans were scaled to a
smaller scale. Note that the Department only requires that scales be l":50'.
Response: Apologies for the difficulty with the size and scale of the plans. Hard copy sets will be
provided to you moving forward. The Phase 1 plans were submitted as road plans at 1”=50’ and
it was very difficult to provide the level of detail, information, and labeling required for County,
VDOT, and ACSA approval and then construction of NMD plan. Since the Phase 1 plans were
approved as road plans, the County requires additional 20’ scale site plans, overlaid on the
approved road plans, for the Blocks with attached housing units. This process led to some
confusion with the County reviewers. It could also create confusion during construction because
there are more than one set of approved plans. Therefore, we decided that the best course
action was to compile a combined site plan with all road, water, and sewer plans to be reviewed
and approved concurrently. Due to the size of the development site, the 1” = 20” scale creates
the need for matchlines and an increased number of plan sheets, but it does allow for adequate
plan labeling and better coordination of the “road plan” and “site plan” requirements. Even
though all of the road plan information is provided in the site plans, the County will require
submittal of a separate road plan application to satisfy the Subdivision Ordinance. This plan set
is going to essentially be a duplication of the site plans. It will not require additional review by
VDOT except for the bridge details.
14. If the resubmission is printed and scaled to an architectural paper size, the Department will
require hard copies to review.
Response: Hard copies of plans, letters, and calculations provided for VDOT review.
15. Show the required area of mill and overlay on Route 250.
16. Provide pavement design calculations.
Response: Hard copies of the design calculations provided to the County to be transferred to
VDOT. Please advise if any hard copies are missing. Preference would be to deliver to VDOT
directly but it has been discouraged by County.
17. Please include the attached Construction Notes on the plans.
Response: Notes added to Sheet 8.
ACSA (Jeremy Lynn)
Revisions and responses delivered directly to ACSA.
Please note that VDOT requested
Please do not hesitate to call me at (434) 531-5544 or email at alan@alanfranklinpe.com with any
questions or request for additional information that will aid in review of the final site plans.
Sincerely,
Alan Franklin, PE
cc:
David Harner; HCM
Rebecca Amster
Mark Keller
Attachments:
ALAN FRANKLIN PE, LLC
427 Cranberry Lane
Crozet, Virginia 22932
(434) 531-5544
alan@alanfranklinpe.com
October 11, 2018
Ms. Amelia McCulley
Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: SDP2018-31 Rivanna Village Phase 2 Park Parking Requirement Study
Dear Amelia,
As part of the Rivanna Village neighborhood, approximately 19 acres of Block J will be developed and
dedicated as a community park that will serve as recreational and outdoor space for not only the residents of
Rivanna Village, but for other County residents. The park improvements will be built by the owner and will
include one basketball court, two tennis courts, two picnic shelters, a large playfield, a playground, a restroom
facility, a dog park, a quarry pond with pier, trails, and natural areas.
In determining the parking requirements for the proposed park, we used Section 18-4.12.6 of the County
Code as guidance. Not all of the proposed park uses were defined in the County Code section. For these uses,
we utilized parking calculations taken from the site plan documents for other Albemarle County parks such as
Darden Towe Park and Crozet Park. Using the combination of resources referenced above, we propose the
requirements as shown on the table below.
PARKING REQUIREMENT CALCULATION FOR RIVANNA VILLAGE PARK
FEATURE QTY UNIT REQMT SUBTOTAL
Pavilions 1872 SF 1 SP/75 SF 25
Playfield 1 EA 24 SP PER 24
Tennis Courts 2 PER FULL COURT 2 4
Basketball Court 1 PER FULL COURT 2 2
Playground 2900 SF 1 PER 125 SF 23
Dog Park 1 EA ESTIMATE 10
TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT 88
We envision that a majority of the park users will originate from within the neighborhood, travelling via foot on
the proposed street sidewalk and open space trail network. The park will also serve residents in the
surrounding neighborhoods who will likely drive. The parking requirements for the park are proposed to be
accommodated through the use of 90 on-street parking spaces available on the proposed streets immediately
adjacent to the park perimeter. Additional on-street parking will be available for park users on other proposed
streets that are not immediately adjacent to the park but nearby (within 1/8 of a mile). The East Rivanna Fire
Department, which is in Block K of Rivanna Village, has offered to make their existing 109 space parking lot
available to the public for additional park parking.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Alan Franklin, PE
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Oct 9 2018
4 x 4 BOX CULVERT AT LAZY BRANCH LANE STA 11+65 (Q25)
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 341.50
Pipe Length (ft) = 78.00
Slope (%) = 1.28
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 342.50
Rise (in) = 48.0
Shape = Box
Span (in) = 48.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.013
Culvert Type = Rectagular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Tapered inlet throat
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.475, 0.667, 0.0179, 0.97, 0.2
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 358.00
Top Width (ft) = 62.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 66.80
Qmax (cfs) = 66.80
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 66.80
Qpipe (cfs) = 66.80
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 5.52
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 8.13
HGL Dn (ft) = 344.53
HGL Up (ft) = 344.55
Hw Elev (ft) = 345.60
Hw/D (ft) = 0.78
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Oct 9 2018
6 x 4 BOX CULVERT AT LAZY BRANCH LANE STA 26+40 (Q25)
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 348.00
Pipe Length (ft) = 70.00
Slope (%) = 1.43
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 349.00
Rise (in) = 48.0
Shape = Box
Span (in) = 72.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.013
Culvert Type = Rectagular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Tapered inlet throat
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.475, 0.667, 0.0179, 0.97, 0.2
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 362.00
Top Width (ft) = 62.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 186.81
Qmax (cfs) = 186.81
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 186.81
Qpipe (cfs) = 186.81
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 8.76
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 10.02
HGL Dn (ft) = 351.55
HGL Up (ft) = 352.11
Hw Elev (ft) = 353.94
Hw/D (ft) = 1.23
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Oct 9 2018
8 x 4 BOX CULVERT AT LAZY BRANCH LANE STA 19+13 (Q25)
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 348.00
Pipe Length (ft) = 75.00
Slope (%) = 1.33
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 349.00
Rise (in) = 48.0
Shape = Box
Span (in) = 96.0
No. Barrels = 1
n-Value = 0.013
Culvert Type = Rectagular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Tapered inlet throat
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.475, 0.667, 0.0179, 0.97, 0.2
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 358.00
Top Width (ft) = 62.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 200.36
Qmax (cfs) = 200.36
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 200.36
Qpipe (cfs) = 200.36
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 7.49
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 9.31
HGL Dn (ft) = 351.34
HGL Up (ft) = 351.69
Hw Elev (ft) = 353.56
Hw/D (ft) = 1.14
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Oct 9 2018
DOUBLE 4 x 2 BOX CULVERT AT LAZY BRANCH LANE STA 31+63 (Q25)
Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 347.00
Pipe Length (ft) = 60.00
Slope (%) = 1.67
Invert Elev Up (ft) = 348.00
Rise (in) = 24.0
Shape = Box
Span (in) = 48.0
No. Barrels = 2
n-Value = 0.013
Culvert Type = Rectagular Concrete
Culvert Entrance = Tapered inlet throat
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.475, 0.667, 0.0179, 0.97, 0.2
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) = 354.00
Top Width (ft) = 55.00
Crest Width (ft) = 100.00
Calculations
Qmin (cfs) = 92.73
Qmax (cfs) = 92.73
Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs) = 92.73
Qpipe (cfs) = 92.73
Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00
Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 6.42
Veloc Up (ft/s) = 7.20
HGL Dn (ft) = 348.80
HGL Up (ft) = 349.61
Hw Elev (ft) = 350.52
Hw/D (ft) = 1.26
Flow Regime = Inlet Control
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 1,870
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 1,870
Design ADT 1,870
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =16
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 4 2.25 9
Subbase 21A 8 0.6 4.8
Total Depth =13.5 Total D(p)17.175
D(p)-D(r) =1.175
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Location
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Assumed value from Appendix I
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
Albemarle
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Butterfield Lane between Terrapin Trace and Route 250
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 1,170
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 1,170
Design ADT 1,170
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)10
RF 1
SSV 10
D(r) =15
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 4 2.25 9
Subbase 21A 8 0.6 4.8
Total Depth =13.5 Total D(p)17.175
D(p)-D(r) =2.175
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Butterfield Lane between Lazy Branch Lane and Terrapin Trace
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 500
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 500
Design ADT 500
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =13
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 3 2.25 6.75
Subbase 21A 6 0.6 3.6
Total Depth =10.5 Total D(p)13.725
D(p)-D(r) =0.725
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Terrapin Trace
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 200
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 200
Design ADT 200
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =9
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 2.5 2.25 5.625
Subbase 21A 6 0.6 3.6
Total Depth =10 Total D(p)12.6
D(p)-D(r) =3.6
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Meander Way
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 300
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 300
Design ADT 300
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =10
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 2.5 2.25 5.625
Subbase 21A 6 0.6 3.6
Total Depth =10 Total D(p)12.6
D(p)-D(r) =2.6
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Mossy Rock Road
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 1,070
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 1,070
Design ADT 1,070
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =15
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 4 2.25 9
Subbase 21A 6 0.6 3.6
Total Depth =11.5 Total D(p)15.975
D(p)-D(r) =0.975
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Lazy Branch Lane b/w Steamer Drive and Mossy Rock Road
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 220
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 220
Design ADT 220
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =9
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 2.5 2.25 5.625
Subbase 21A 6 0.6 3.6
Total Depth =10 Total D(p)12.6
D(p)-D(r) =3.6
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Lazy Branch Lane from Steamer Drive to Cul de Sac
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
County:Date:4/25/2018
Subdivision:
Street Name:
Developer:Phone:(434) 531-5544
ADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBR(d)Design CBR = Average of CBRt x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBR(t)CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide.
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil's ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRd x RF)
D(p)Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
D(r) Thickness index required, based on Design ADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
ADT 252
% Growth 0
Design Year 20
% HCV 1
EPT 252
Design ADT 252
CBR 4
or
Sample CBR(t)
CBR#1
CBR#2
CBR#3
CBR#4
CBR#5
CBR(d)4
RF 1
SSV 4
D(r) =9.5
Course Material Thickness Equivalency D(p)
Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 3.375
Base BM-25 2.5 2.25 5.625
Subbase 21A 4 0.6 2.4
Total Depth =8 Total D(p)11.4
D(p)-D(r) =1.9
D(p)>D(r) Therefore:ADEQUATE
Albemarle
Rivanna Village Phase 2
Cattail Court (Private)
Rivanna Investments, LLC
Step 1: Determine Design ADT
Average Daily Traffic Volume
per year
Number of years after construction
Heavy Commercial Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic Volume
Step 2: Determine Desing Values CBR, RF, and SSV
Assumed value from Appendix I
Location
Soil Support Value from Appendix I
Step 3: Pavement Design
From Appendix II
Average CBR * (2/3) or Assumed CBR
Resiliency Factor from Appendix I
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS
PROJECT:
DATE:
*Ht calculated using max Hi DESIGNER:
**VDOT STD IS-1 specified on all structures so 0.5Ht used in all cases
Lower Inlet Outlet Final Inlet Rim Notes
Invert #W.S. El.Do Qo Lo Sfo Hf Vo Ho Qi Vi QiVi (Vi^2)/2g Hi Angle HΔ Ht*1.3Ht 0.5Ht**H W.S. El.El.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
351.50 2A2 352.50 15 3.83 62.85 0.35 0.22 4.90 0.09 1.86 4.10 7.63 0.26 0.09 45 0.43 0.61 0.80 0.40 0.62 353.12 358.12
352.07 2A3 353.12 15 1.86 31.86 0.08 0.03 4.10 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.11 353.23 358.15
351.30 2B2 352.30 15 2.07 15.34 0.10 0.02 4.00 0.06 1.41 3.90 5.50 0.24 0.08 0 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.09 0.11 352.41 353.75
351.50 2B3 352.50 15 1.41 31.84 0.05 0.02 3.90 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.09 352.59 355.75
348.00 2C2 349.20 18 5.00 91.42 0.23 0.21 5.10 0.10 2.31 4.50 10.40 0.31 0.11 80 0.66 0.90 1.17 0.58 0.79 349.99 354.20
1.49 5.00 7.45 0.39 0.14 10 0.07 from 2C2-1
349.47 2C3 350.47 15 2.31 32.16 0.13 0.04 4.50 0.08 1.39 3.80 5.28 0.22 0.08 90 0.70 0.86 1.11 0.56 0.60 351.07 354.20
349.81 2C4 351.07 15 1.39 79.13 0.05 0.04 3.80 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.11 351.18 354.40
349.47 2C2-1 350.47 15 1.49 43.36 0.05 0.02 5.00 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.09 350.56 354.28
352.20 2D2 353.20 15 2.24 33.73 0.12 0.04 5.80 0.13 1.75 4.00 7.00 0.25 0.09 25 0.22 0.44 0.57 0.28 0.33 353.53 356.82
352.87 2D3 353.87 15 1.75 32.38 0.07 0.02 4.00 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.10 353.97 357.11
352.20 2E2 353.20 15 1.33 52.83 0.04 0.02 4.50 0.08 0.77 3.90 3.00 0.24 0.08 10 0.07 0.23 0.30 0.15 0.17 353.37 360.00
352.75 2E3 353.75 15 0.77 33.89 0.01 0.00 3.90 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.08 353.83 360.66
357.00 2F2 358.00 15 1.73 114.54 0.07 0.08 5.50 0.12 1.23 3.90 4.80 0.24 0.08 10 0.07 0.27 0.35 0.18 0.26 358.26 363.74
359.10 2F3 360.10 15 1.23 40.86 0.04 0.01 3.90 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.09 360.19 363.46
357.00 2G2 358.00 15 0.62 50.94 0.01 0.00 3.00 0.03 0.59 2.60 1.53 0.10 0.04 60 0.55 0.62 0.81 0.40 0.41 358.41 361.00
357.51 2G3 358.51 15 0.59 195.14 0.01 0.02 2.60 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 358.56 365.90
356.50 2I2 357.30 12 0.70 21.98 0.04 0.01 3.40 0.04 0.25 2.30 0.58 0.08 0.03 35 0.33 0.40 0.52 0.26 0.27 357.57 360.00
356.80 2I3 357.60 12 0.25 142.96 0.00 0.01 2.30 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 357.63 361.00
Junction Loss
Rivanna Village Ph. 2
9/26/2018
AGF
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS
PROJECT:
DATE:
*Ht calculated using max Hi DESIGNER:
**VDOT STD IS-1 specified on all structures so 0.5Ht used in all cases
Lower Inlet Outlet Final Inlet Rim Notes
Invert #W.S. El.Do Qo Lo Sfo Hf Vo Ho Qi Vi QiVi (Vi^2)/2g Hi Angle HΔ Ht*1.3Ht 0.5Ht**H W.S. El.El.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
Junction Loss
Rivanna Village Ph. 2
9/26/2018
AGF
352.30 2J2 353.50 18 8.44 36.95 0.65 0.24 6.50 0.16 8.01 6.50 52.07 0.66 0.23 15 0.10 0.49 0.64 0.32 0.56 354.06 360.00
352.75 2J3 354.06 18 8.01 40.68 0.58 0.24 6.50 0.16 6.45 9.60 61.92 1.43 0.50 20 0.16 0.82 1.07 0.54 0.77 354.83 360.25
0.96 4.90 4.70 0.37 0.13 40 0.38 from 2J3-1
353.25 2J4 354.83 15 6.45 63.85 1.00 0.64 9.60 0.36 3.89 9.10 35.40 1.29 0.45 30 0.28 1.09 1.41 0.71 1.34 356.18 361.50
355.40 2J5 356.40 15 3.89 160.96 0.36 0.58 9.10 0.32 2.81 6.24 17.53 0.60 0.21 0 0.00 0.53 0.69 0.35 0.93 357.33 367.86
361.76 2J6 362.76 15 2.81 89.00 0.19 0.17 6.24 0.15 2.03 4.90 9.95 0.37 0.13 0 0.00 0.28 0.37 0.18 0.35 363.11 371.32
363.42 2J7 364.42 15 2.03 125.53 0.10 0.12 4.90 0.09 2.05 4.80 9.84 0.36 0.13 15 0.10 0.32 0.41 0.21 0.33 364.75 375.66
365.00 2J8 366.00 15 2.05 44.85 0.10 0.05 4.80 0.09 1.71 4.00 6.84 0.25 0.09 0 0.00 0.25 0.32 0.16 0.21 366.21 374.50
0.40 5.40 2.16 0.45 0.16 60 0.55 from 2J8-1
365.60 2J9 366.60 15 1.71 126.49 0.07 0.09 4.00 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.17 366.77 370.67
355.75 2J3-1 356.75 15 0.96 39.65 0.02 0.01 4.90 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.07 356.82 360.55
368.50 2J8-1 369.50 15 0.40 22.22 0.00 0.00 5.40 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.07 369.57 374.00
358.50 2K2 359.30 12 1.27 22.63 0.13 0.03 6.90 0.18 0.97 5.60 5.43 0.49 0.17 30 0.28 0.64 0.83 0.41 0.44 359.74 363.50
359.40 2K3 360.20 12 0.97 159.48 0.07 0.12 5.60 0.12 0.67 3.70 2.48 0.21 0.07 0 0.00 0.20 0.25 0.13 0.25 360.45 368.91
363.48 2K4 364.28 12 0.67 181.72 0.04 0.06 3.70 0.05 0.34 3.00 1.02 0.14 0.05 15 0.10 0.20 0.26 0.13 0.20 364.48 375.83
365.38 2K5 366.18 12 0.34 103.05 0.01 0.01 3.00 0.03 0.18 2.50 0.45 0.10 0.03 0 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.05 366.23 376.21
366.48 2K6 367.28 12 0.18 132.48 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 367.31 372.00
358.50 2L2 359.50 15 1.26 23.25 0.04 0.01 6.91 0.19 0.96 7.01 6.73 0.76 0.27 15 0.10 0.55 0.72 0.36 0.37 359.87 363.00
359.10 2L3 360.10 15 0.96 131.96 0.02 0.03 7.01 0.19 0.65 6.90 4.49 0.74 0.26 0 0.00 0.45 0.58 0.29 0.32 360.42 368.50
364.60 2L4 365.60 15 0.65 164.60 0.01 0.02 6.90 0.18 0.66 5.10 3.37 0.40 0.14 20 0.16 0.49 0.63 0.32 0.33 365.93 376.00
372.10 2L5 373.10 15 0.66 142.75 0.01 0.01 5.10 0.10 0.35 2.60 0.91 0.10 0.04 35 0.33 0.47 0.61 0.30 0.32 373.42 380.00
374.10 2L6 375.10 15 0.35 132.49 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.03 0.18 2.60 0.47 0.10 0.04 0 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.04 375.14 385.00
378.46 2L7 379.46 15 0.18 132.49 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 379.50 382.50
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS
PROJECT:
DATE:
*Ht calculated using max Hi DESIGNER:
**VDOT STD IS-1 specified on all structures so 0.5Ht used in all cases
Lower Inlet Outlet Final Inlet Rim Notes
Invert #W.S. El.Do Qo Lo Sfo Hf Vo Ho Qi Vi QiVi (Vi^2)/2g Hi Angle HΔ Ht*1.3Ht 0.5Ht**H W.S. El.El.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
Junction Loss
Rivanna Village Ph. 2
9/26/2018
AGF
342.00 2M2 344.00 30 33.74 130.53 0.68 0.88 9.90 0.38 32.04 9.30 297.97 1.34 0.47 0 0.00 0.85 1.11 0.55 1.44 345.44 355.25
1.30 8.77 11.40 1.19 0.42 45 0.43 from 2M2-1
1.72 9.30 16.00 1.34 0.47 45 0.43 from 2N1
346.43 2M3 348.43 30 32.04 119.29 0.61 0.73 9.30 0.34 30.06 9.10 273.55 1.29 0.45 0 0.00 0.79 1.02 0.51 1.24 349.67 353.86
0.96 4.90 4.70 0.37 0.13 90 0.70 from 201
347.72 2M4 349.72 30 30.06 148.76 0.54 0.80 9.10 0.32 30.01 9.10 273.09 1.29 0.45 60 0.55 1.32 1.72 0.86 1.66 351.38 357.20
349.31 2M5 351.38 30 30.01 68.32 0.54 0.37 9.10 0.32 27.11 9.70 262.97 1.46 0.51 60 0.55 1.38 1.80 0.90 1.27 352.64 358.00
4.09 6.70 27.40 0.70 0.24 0.00 from 2M3-1
350.10 2M6 352.64 24 27.11 32.16 1.44 0.46 9.70 0.37 22.94 9.80 224.81 1.49 0.52 60 0.55 1.44 1.87 0.93 1.40 354.04 358.00
2.95 6.60 19.47 0.68 0.24 90 0.70 from 2M6-1
0.96 4.90 4.70 0.37 0.13 40 0.38 from 2Z1
352.60 2M7 354.20 24 22.94 67.57 1.03 0.70 9.80 0.37 21.89 9.60 210.14 1.43 0.50 60 0.55 1.42 1.85 0.93 1.62 355.82 360.56
353.66 2M8 355.82 24 21.89 117.94 0.94 1.11 9.60 0.36 21.43 9.70 207.87 1.46 0.51 0 0.00 0.87 1.13 0.56 1.67 357.49 364.36
355.46 2M9 357.49 24 21.43 144.84 0.90 1.30 9.70 0.37 21.30 9.70 206.61 1.46 0.51 50 0.47 1.35 1.75 0.88 2.18 359.67 369.43
358.73 2M10 360.33 24 21.30 52.22 0.89 0.46 9.70 0.37 20.44 7.90 161.48 0.97 0.34 45 0.43 1.13 1.47 0.74 1.20 361.53 370.86
1.35 7.50 10.13 0.87 0.31 50 0.47 from 2P1
359.61 2M11 361.53 24 20.44 31.84 0.82 0.26 7.90 0.24 2.48 9.80 24.30 1.49 0.52 45 0.43 1.19 1.55 0.78 1.04 362.57 370.86
18.59 9.50 176.61 1.40 0.49 90 0.70 from 2Q1
362.01 2M12 363.01 15 2.48 50.08 0.15 0.07 9.80 0.37 0.74 5.70 4.22 0.50 0.18 45 0.43 0.98 1.27 0.64 0.71 363.72 374.47
365.57 2M13 366.57 15 0.74 38.84 0.01 0.01 5.70 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.08 0.17 366.74 374.47
361.26 2Q1 362.86 24 18.59 82.46 0.68 0.56 9.50 0.35 16.83 9.20 154.84 1.31 0.46 90 0.70 1.51 1.96 0.98 1.54 364.40 369.71
2.04 5.00 10.20 0.39 0.14 0 0.00 from 2Q1-1
364.47 2Q2 366.07 24 16.83 35.44 0.55 0.20 9.20 0.33 16.50 9.30 153.45 1.34 0.47 45 0.43 1.23 1.60 0.80 1.00 367.07 370.75
365.10 2Q3 367.07 24 16.50 35.44 0.53 0.19 9.30 0.34 16.52 9.20 151.98 1.31 0.46 45 0.43 1.23 1.59 0.80 0.99 368.05 377.00
366.70 2Q4 368.30 24 16.52 99.00 0.53 0.53 9.20 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.21 0.96 369.26 0.00 ES-1
364.31 2Q1-1 365.31 15 2.04 46.36 0.10 0.05 5.00 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.17 365.48 370.07
363.81 2P1 364.81 15 1.35 82.23 0.04 0.04 7.50 0.22 0.82 5.00 4.10 0.39 0.14 0 0.00 0.35 0.46 0.23 0.27 365.08 369.71
359.61 2P2 365.08 15 0.82 61.92 0.02 0.01 5.00 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.14 365.21 370.38
351.25 2M6-1 354.04 15 2.95 56.44 0.21 0.12 6.60 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.23 354.27 358.60
353.35 2Z1 354.35 15 3.15 30.58 0.24 0.07 9.10 0.32 0.32 0.42 0.21 0.28 354.63 360.75
348.87 2M3-1 349.87 15 2.20 18.92 0.12 0.02 8.30 0.27 0.27 0.35 0.17 0.20 350.07 353.75
344.75 2M2-1 345.75 15 1.30 32.10 0.04 0.01 8.77 0.30 0.59 3.50 2.07 0.19 0.07 45 0.43 0.80 1.03 0.52 0.53 346.28 354.86
347.61 2M2-2 348.61 15 0.59 44.46 0.01 0.00 3.50 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.07 348.68 355.13
351.25 2O1 352.64 15 4.09 41.83 0.40 0.17 6.70 0.17 1.36 4.80 6.53 0.36 0.13 35 0.33 0.63 0.82 0.41 0.58 353.22 355.25
352.04 2O2 353.22 15 1.36 98.13 0.04 0.04 4.80 0.09 1.45 7.20 10.44 0.80 0.28 10 0.07 0.44 0.57 0.29 0.33 353.55 369.43
353.63 2O3 354.63 15 1.45 126.25 0.05 0.06 7.20 0.20 0.69 4.80 3.31 0.36 0.13 45 0.43 0.76 0.98 0.49 0.56 355.19 374.47
359.22 2O4 360.22 15 0.69 36.38 0.01 0.00 4.80 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.12 360.34 374.47
344.75 2N1 345.75 15 1.72 30.58 0.07 0.02 9.30 0.34 0.86 6.00 5.16 0.56 0.20 0 0.00 0.53 0.69 0.35 0.37 346.12 355.13
347.23 2N2 348.23 15 0.86 48.10 0.02 0.01 6.00 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.19 348.42 355.62
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS
PROJECT:
DATE:
*Ht calculated using max Hi DESIGNER:
**VDOT STD IS-1 specified on all structures so 0.5Ht used in all cases
Lower Inlet Outlet Final Inlet Rim Notes
Invert #W.S. El.Do Qo Lo Sfo Hf Vo Ho Qi Vi QiVi (Vi^2)/2g Hi Angle HΔ Ht*1.3Ht 0.5Ht**H W.S. El.El.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
Junction Loss
Rivanna Village Ph. 2
9/26/2018
AGF
341.50 2S2 343.10 24 12.09 74.06 0.29 0.21 7.29 0.21 12.18 7.34 89.40 0.84 0.29 0 0.00 0.50 0.65 0.32 0.54 343.64 348.00
342.35 2S3 343.95 24 12.18 78.77 0.29 0.23 7.34 0.21 11.69 7.22 84.40 0.81 0.28 0 0.00 0.49 0.64 0.32 0.55 344.50 357.42
343.25 2S4 344.85 24 11.69 41.98 0.27 0.11 7.22 0.20 11.37 7.88 89.60 0.96 0.34 25 0.22 0.76 0.99 0.49 0.61 345.46 357.11
343.77 2S5 345.46 18 11.37 103.60 1.17 1.22 7.88 0.24 10.98 8.74 95.97 1.19 0.42 65 0.58 1.24 1.61 0.80 2.02 347.48 355.13
345.31 2S6 347.48 18 10.98 67.87 1.09 0.74 8.74 0.30 10.29 8.69 89.42 1.17 0.41 60 0.55 1.26 1.63 0.82 1.56 349.03 353.86
346.61 2S7 349.03 18 10.29 39.74 0.96 0.38 8.69 0.29 9.72 9.66 93.90 1.45 0.51 30 0.28 1.08 1.40 0.70 1.08 350.12 354.13
347.43 2S8 350.12 18 9.72 103.74 0.86 0.89 9.66 0.36 9.20 9.60 88.32 1.43 0.50 0 0.00 0.86 1.12 0.56 1.45 351.57 357.03
350.13 2S9 351.57 18 9.20 131.44 0.77 1.01 9.60 0.36 8.54 9.90 84.55 1.52 0.53 0 0.00 0.89 1.16 0.58 1.59 353.16 361.24
353.59 2S10 354.59 15 8.54 100.88 1.75 1.77 9.90 0.38 7.97 8.86 70.61 1.22 0.43 60 0.55 1.36 1.76 0.88 2.65 357.24 364.45
356.70 2S11 357.70 15 7.97 150.10 1.52 2.29 8.86 0.30 7.62 9.54 72.69 1.41 0.49 35 0.33 1.13 1.47 0.73 3.02 360.72 369.53
360.13 2S12 361.13 15 7.62 45.21 1.39 0.63 9.54 0.35 7.71 6.54 50.42 0.66 0.23 50 0.47 1.06 1.37 0.69 1.32 362.45 370.77
361.52 2S13 362.52 15 7.71 104.15 1.43 1.49 6.54 0.17 3.56 6.85 24.39 0.73 0.26 0 0.00 0.42 0.55 0.27 1.76 364.28 369.40
2.60 4.00 10.40 0.25 0.09 90 0.70 from 2R1
365.16 2S14 366.16 15 3.56 164.95 0.30 0.50 6.85 0.18 2.37 5.60 13.27 0.49 0.17 60 0.55 0.90 1.17 0.59 1.09 367.25 374.51
368.25 2S15 369.25 15 2.37 37.35 0.13 0.05 5.60 0.12 1.82 9.70 17.65 1.46 0.51 60 0.55 1.18 1.54 0.77 0.82 370.07 375.81
368.91 2S16 370.07 15 1.82 66.34 0.08 0.05 9.70 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.24 0.53 370.60 381.07
362.66 2R1 364.28 15 2.60 32.16 0.16 0.05 4.00 0.06 0.72 4.20 3.02 0.27 0.10 90 0.70 0.89 1.15 0.58 0.63 364.91 369.40
0.18 4.70 0.85 0.34 0.12 15 0.10 from 2R1-A
1.03 4.76 4.90 0.35 0.12 90 0.70 from 2R1-B
363.00 2R2 364.91 15 0.72 47.39 0.01 0.01 4.20 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.09 365.00 369.80
363.00 2R1-A 364.91 15 0.18 22.94 0.00 0.00 4.70 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.11 365.02 369.75
363.00 2R1-B 364.00 15 1.03 35.83 0.03 0.01 4.76 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.12 364.12 369.62
353.00 2T2 354.00 15 0.51 4.50 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 354.00 359.70
352.00 2U2 353.60 24 9.07 74.00 0.16 0.12 6.10 0.14 7.83 5.90 46.20 0.54 0.19 50 0.47 0.80 1.04 0.52 0.64 354.24 360.20
352.68 2U3 354.28 24 7.83 60.22 0.12 0.07 5.90 0.14 6.92 5.70 39.44 0.50 0.18 15 0.10 0.41 0.54 0.27 0.34 354.62 358.14
353.28 2U4 354.62 15 6.92 50.75 1.15 0.58 5.70 0.13 3.96 4.90 19.40 0.37 0.13 65 0.58 0.84 1.09 0.54 1.13 355.75 357.61
353.76 2U5 355.75 15 3.96 36.00 0.38 0.14 4.90 0.09 2.56 9.70 24.83 1.46 0.51 15 0.10 0.70 0.92 0.46 0.59 356.34 357.75
354.13 2U6 356.34 15 2.56 76.00 0.16 0.12 9.70 0.37 2.57 8.00 20.56 0.99 0.35 40 0.38 1.09 1.42 0.71 0.83 357.17 370.00
362.00 2U7 363.00 15 2.57 40.00 0.16 0.06 8.00 0.25 1.04 7.90 8.22 0.97 0.34 30 0.28 0.87 1.13 0.56 0.63 363.63 369.75
363.85 2U8 364.85 15 1.04 156.00 0.03 0.04 7.90 0.24 0.24 0.31 0.16 0.36 365.21 381.75
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS
PROJECT:
DATE:
*Ht calculated using max Hi DESIGNER:
**VDOT STD IS-1 specified on all structures so 0.5Ht used in all cases
Lower Inlet Outlet Final Inlet Rim Notes
Invert #W.S. El.Do Qo Lo Sfo Hf Vo Ho Qi Vi QiVi (Vi^2)/2g Hi Angle HΔ Ht*1.3Ht 0.5Ht**H W.S. El.El.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
Junction Loss
Rivanna Village Ph. 2
9/26/2018
AGF
352.00 2V2 353.20 18 5.38 24.00 0.26 0.06 6.06 0.14 5.15 5.52 28.43 0.47 0.17 35 0.33 0.64 0.83 0.41 0.48 353.68 358.57
352.35 2V3 353.68 18 5.15 78.88 0.24 0.19 5.52 0.12 4.48 7.22 32.35 0.81 0.28 15 0.10 0.50 0.65 0.33 0.52 354.19 357.61
353.11 2V4 354.19 15 4.48 109.75 0.48 0.53 7.22 0.20 3.65 5.53 20.18 0.47 0.17 90 0.70 1.07 1.39 0.69 1.22 355.42 359.73
355.28 2V5 356.28 15 3.65 31.84 0.32 0.10 5.53 0.12 0.72 4.70 3.38 0.34 0.12 90 0.70 0.94 1.22 0.61 0.71 356.99 359.73
1.86 4.65 8.65 0.34 0.12 20 0.16 from 2V5-1
355.73 2V6 356.99 15 0.72 108.61 0.01 0.01 4.70 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.12 357.12 365.67
355.73 2V5-1 356.99 15 1.86 25.17 0.08 0.02 4.65 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.13 357.12 359.75
338.00 2W2 339.20 18 1.25 36.32 0.01 0.01 9.40 0.34 10.31 9.90 102.07 1.52 0.53 15 0.10 0.98 1.27 0.63 0.64 339.84 343.00
338.85 2W3 340.05 18 10.31 114.08 0.96 1.10 9.90 0.38 2.70 9.60 25.92 1.43 0.50 90 0.70 1.58 2.06 1.03 2.13 342.18 351.25
7.98 8.10 64.64 1.02 0.36 0 0.00 from 2W3-1
341.85 2W4 342.85 15 2.70 102.31 0.17 0.18 9.60 0.36 2.10 5.70 11.97 0.50 0.18 75 0.64 1.17 1.53 0.76 0.94 343.79 355.34
348.09 2W5 349.09 15 2.10 32.91 0.11 0.03 5.70 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.08 0.20 349.29 355.76
343.85 2W3-1 345.05 18 7.98 31.84 0.58 0.18 8.10 0.25 6.99 8.90 62.21 1.23 0.43 35 0.33 1.02 1.32 0.66 0.84 345.89 351.25
344.50 2W3-2 345.89 15 6.99 51.00 1.17 0.60 8.90 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.20 1.00 346.89 349.75
331.00 2X2 332.20 18 3.58 24.00 0.12 0.03 5.50 0.12 3.34 5.00 16.70 0.39 0.14 30 0.28 0.53 0.69 0.35 0.37 332.57 338.42
331.77 2X3 332.97 18 3.34 78.88 0.10 0.08 5.00 0.10 2.66 6.30 16.76 0.62 0.22 40 0.38 0.69 0.90 0.45 0.53 333.50 346.00
0.80 4.50 3.60 0.31 0.11 30 0.28 from 2X3-1
336.10 2X4 337.30 18 2.70 102.31 0.07 0.07 9.60 0.36 2.10 5.70 11.97 0.50 0.18 40 0.38 0.91 1.19 0.59 0.66 337.96 345.10
0.69 4.10 2.83 0.26 0.09 50 0.47 from 2X4-1
337.20 2X5 338.40 18 2.70 102.31 0.07 0.07 9.60 0.36 2.10 5.70 11.97 0.50 0.18 90 0.70 1.56 2.03 1.01 1.08 339.48 345.10
3.56 8.00 28.48 0.99 0.35 90 0.70 from 2X5-1
2.75 9.60 26.40 1.43 0.50 0 0.00 2X5-B
338.35 2X6 339.48 15 6.99 51.00 1.17 0.60 8.90 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.20 1.00 340.48 346.00
338.35 2X5-1 339.48 15 3.56 50.60 0.30 0.15 8.00 0.25 2.70 9.90 26.73 1.52 0.53 0 0.00 0.78 1.02 0.51 0.66 340.14 345.53
339.63 2X5-2 340.63 15 2.70 48.00 0.17 0.08 9.90 0.38 0.38 0.49 0.25 0.58 341.21 347.75
338.35 2X5-B 339.48 15 2.75 23.69 0.18 0.04 9.60 0.36 0.36 0.47 0.23 0.51 339.99 345.75
337.20 2X4-1 338.20 15 0.69 71.79 0.01 0.01 4.40 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.11 338.31 346.00
336.10 2X3-1 337.10 15 0.80 40.89 0.02 0.01 4.50 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.11 337.21 345.45
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE COMPUTATIONS
PROJECT:
DATE:
*Ht calculated using max Hi DESIGNER:
**VDOT STD IS-1 specified on all structures so 0.5Ht used in all cases
Lower Inlet Outlet Final Inlet Rim Notes
Invert #W.S. El.Do Qo Lo Sfo Hf Vo Ho Qi Vi QiVi (Vi^2)/2g Hi Angle HΔ Ht*1.3Ht 0.5Ht**H W.S. El.El.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)
Junction Loss
Rivanna Village Ph. 2
9/26/2018
AGF
351.00 AA2 352.20 18 5.26 70.00 0.25 0.18 5.30 0.11 5.34 5.40 28.84 0.45 0.16 40 0.38 0.65 0.84 0.42 0.60 352.80 360.00
351.62 AA3 352.82 18 5.34 108.15 0.26 0.28 5.40 0.11 1.10 3.50 3.85 0.19 0.07 0 0.00 0.18 0.23 0.12 0.40 353.22 355.75
352.53 AA4 353.53 15 1.10 70.00 0.03 0.02 3.50 0.05 1.12 3.80 4.26 0.22 0.08 25 0.22 0.35 0.45 0.22 0.25 353.78 357.05
353.15 AA5 354.15 15 1.12 85.00 0.03 0.03 3.80 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.10 354.25 357.90
350.00 BB2 351.00 15 1.23 12.00 0.04 0.00 5.63 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.08 0.16 351.16 354.31
351.75 CC2 352.75 15 2.97 66.00 0.21 0.14 5.20 0.10 1.24 3.77 4.67 0.22 0.08 0 0.00 0.18 0.24 0.12 0.26 353.01 354.75
352.51 CC3 353.51 15 1.24 132.00 0.04 0.05 3.77 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.12 353.63 355.75
348.50 A2 350.90 36 37.29 125.69 0.31 0.39 10.50 0.43 32.13 9.60 308.45 1.43 0.50 0 0.00 0.93 1.21 0.60 1.00 351.90 358.97
7.98 8.10 64.64 1.02 0.36 90 0.70 from A2-1
7.98 8.10 64.64 1.02 0.36 90 0.70 from 2H1
350.16 A3 352.16 30 32.13 39.30 0.61 0.24 9.60 0.36 31.44 12.87 404.63 2.57 0.90 65 0.58 1.84 2.39 1.19 1.44 353.60 358.97
350.80 A4 353.60 24 31.44 81.60 1.93 1.58 12.87 0.64 28.95 11.35 328.58 2.00 0.70 65 0.58 1.92 2.50 1.25 2.83 356.42 359.73 from phase 1
1.29 4.06 5.24 0.26 0.09 0 0.00 from A4-1
352.98 A4-1 356.42 15 1.29 38.10 0.04 0.02 4.06 0.06 0.59 2.00 1.18 0.06 0.02 75 0.64 0.73 0.94 0.47 0.49 356.91 360.30
353.45 A4-2 356.91 15 0.59 40.58 0.01 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 356.93 360.60
351.83 A2-1 352.83 15 2.83 94.00 0.19 0.18 7.10 0.20 2.01 5.30 10.65 0.44 0.15 90 0.70 1.05 1.36 0.68 0.86 353.69 362.66
354.76 A2-2 355.76 15 2.01 38.94 0.10 0.04 5.30 0.11 1.20 5.00 6.00 0.39 0.14 90 0.70 0.94 1.23 0.61 0.65 356.41 362.66
355.41 A2-3 356.41 15 1.20 182.88 0.03 0.06 5.00 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.19 356.60 364.54
350.16 2H1 351.90 15 1.79 71.78 0.08 0.06 3.80 0.06 0.96 3.00 2.88 0.14 0.05 90 0.70 0.80 1.05 0.52 0.58 352.48 358.20
351.30 2H2 352.48 15 0.96 38.84 0.02 0.01 3.00 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05 352.53 358.20