HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-12-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
Rivanna Village Phase 2, Block F, G, H, I, & J —Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932
[alan(&alanfranklinpe.com ]
Owner or rep.:
Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Plan received date:
4 May 2018
(Rev. 1)
23 Oct 2018
Date of comments:
26 June 2018
(Rev. 1)
14 Dec 2018
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Christopher Perez
SDP2018-00031 For clarity, comments Addressed with Rev. 1 are "graved" out
VSMP Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.
a. Provide VSMP Plan that meets requirements of 17-401. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn,
review error. As follow-up: Revise plan reference to read `WPO201800007, Approved
5/09/18.'
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed;
though vehicular access may be shown on WPO201800007, easements must be recorded.
May require further work.
c. Provide receipt of recordation of SWM Facility Deed of Dedication. (Rev. 1) Not addressed;
provide book -page reference to SWM Facility Deed of Dedication unless Applicant plans to
record easements with final subdivision plat/s.
d. Ref. prior -approved WPO# if prior approved plans are relied upon. (Rev. 1) Addressed; see
La., above for correct WPO Plan #.
e. Provide Mitigation for stream buffer and wetland impacts. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn,
review error. Reference WPO201800007.
Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant
response: `Road Plan Application forthcoming.'
Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
Sheet 2, Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
Sheet 2, Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
Sheet 4: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
Sheet 4: Provide calculations for ADT. ADT appears inconsistent; for example: Cattail Court 42
Attached units (G1-G42), ADT =200, while Terrapin Trace 14 Attached units (I48-I62) ADT =200.
Mossy Rock Rd. 18 single-family (J39-J57) ADT =100 appears low, while Meander Way (12 single-
family units, 135-I47) ADT =100, is more reasonable. Reference ITE Trip Generation Manual, most
recent volume, when calculating ADT.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
9. Sheet 6: Rt. 250Improvements single lane addition typical section appears to indicate 2" SM-12.5A
tapers to zero thickness (0") at edge of 8' paved shoulder; confirm consistent with VDOT standards.
Sheet 8 / CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response to item 10,
applies to items 11-18, as well: `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
pans 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 and VDOT. Details in question have been removed
form set to eliminate further confusion.' Engineering accepts this response.
10. 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 com-
putations that have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer having at least 5 years
experience in structural design of precast structures or components proposed and licensed to
practice engineering in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unless otherwise specified, concrete
11. Provide high definition images with legible text details for each CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch
Structure detail. Most text is illegible. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
12. Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECHBridgeCor® Arch Structure is
of particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item
8, above.
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. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. See item 8, above.
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. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
See item 8, above.
15. Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced concrete
arch footing. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
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"
[structure]. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
17. Note: Notes on schematic of proposed Contech detail (top right corner, 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. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
18. Details reference single radius arch: This does not appear to be a single radius structure; check label.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above.
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.
20. Sheets 9-19 /CG-12: Ramps at perpendicular crossings are shown as diagonal crossing ramps. Revise
per VDOT standard [removed with Rev. 1]:
�heet�4 [image removed with Rev. I]
21. Sheet 11: Provide Auto -turn figs. /driveway geometry, multiple lots, including I-60, -61, -62, -64, J-1
(sheet 18), etc. Propose smooth curves as opposed to angles which necessitate off -pavement turns
/maneuvers to enter and exit drives. Review all driveways. (Also item #36)
[image removed with Rev. I]
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.
23. Sheet 14: Recommend relocate street name /speed limit and any required signs from radial sections of
roadway to tangent sections, wherever possible.
24. Sheet 14: Revise Matchline (right margin) to read sheet 15.
25. Sheet 15: Provide sight line easement on Lot I-4.
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.
27. Sheet 20: Revise value in parenthesis to match design speed (60, not 25). Check profiles captions.
28. Sheets 20/21: Profile ref. to Butterfield and Park may not match proposed road names. Please confirm.
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. (Rev.
1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Engineering cannot locate culvert design analysis for arch span
on Terrapin Trace, Sta. 18+15(±). Please provide Q25 analysis for this structure, unless overlooked.
Q25 analyses for structures on Lazy Branch Lane are accepted.
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'±).
31. Sheet 28: Provide drainage easement for storm pipe, NE corner lot 1-3 1.
32. Sheet 32: Provide drainage easement for storm line between SD 2J3-1 and SD 2J3.
33. Sheet 34: Proposed forest /open space easement l' 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. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. As follow-up: Although proposed Forest /Open Space easements under WPO2018000073
were approved, if Forest /Open Space easements are V from playing surface, or intersect tennis court,
and have yet to be recorded, Albemarle intends to coordinate with the WPO plan designer to amend
easements in limited areas, consistent with DEQ guidance. County will strive to minimize any delay
of issuance of Grading permit for Phase 2 development.
(https://www.deq.virginia.gov/portals/0/deq/connectwithdeg/trainin swM/21anreviewswm pg modul
e4.pdf )
Sheet 34
[image removed with Rev. I]
Sheet 34 —Revise proposed Forest /Open Space Easement located interior to Lot lines. Do not show
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
Forest /Open Space Easements on any portion of any lot unless Owner intends to convey lots with
portions that ma never be turf or impervious but must remain open space /forest, in perpetuity. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. Applicant 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.' Engineering agrees. Also,
follow-up, immediately, above.
[image removed with Rev. I]
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
/ rp ofile 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". Link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/CommunityDevelopment/forms/Engineeringand
_WPO_Forms/Engineering_Review_Drainage Plans_ Checklist_1Dec2014.pdf
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots I-32 thru I-36 (sheets 28/32); I-48 thru I-57 (back yards, sheet 29);
J-39 thru J-44 (front yards, sheets 33/35). [ image removed with Rev. I]
[image removed with Rev. I]
35. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc., unless intentional image below.
(Review all sheets.) [image removed with Rev. I]
36. Sheet 37: Provide Auto -turn diagrams that show a 2» d 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 -turn figure for any lot where design configuration
is similar, or problematic.
[image removed with Rev. I]
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. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Design at Lots
J-1, J-2 requires revision.
[ image removed with Rev. 1 ]
38. Sheet 37: Provide off -site temporary construction easements required to grade to adjacent property
lines. Image, below —examine and provide remedy for similar proposed grading to property line.
( ; image removed with Rev. 1)
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.
[image removed with Rev. I]
40. Sheet 63: Revise d/h column values, Inlets in Sump.
41. Sheets 64-68: Label each pipe. Provide pipe structure numbers.
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. `217' 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 @
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
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 of 24" HDPE @ 2.74%.
ii. 52.22 LF of 24" HDPE @ 3.03%.
iii. 31.84 LF of 24" HDPE @ 0.94%.
iv. 50.08 LF of 15" HDPE @ 5.73%.
g. `2S' profile: 164.95 LF of 15" HDPE @ 1.81% (5-6' fill).
43. Sheet 67: Str. SD 253, 2S4 (height str. >12') provide label and detail for VDOT SL-1 (safety slab).
44. Sheet 67: Revise structure label SD S24 to read 2S4.
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.
(Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `All of the box culver 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.
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."
48. MH Structures SD 2F2, 2F3, 2G2, 2K2, 2L2, 2M9, 2M10, 2M11, 2M12, 2R1-B, 25-11 are proposed
in fill sections and require inspection by qualified personnel reporting to the Engineer that installation
is per VDOT specification, item #47.
49. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, General Notes on plans (107.00; Spec. Ref. 302 /303 -.PDF p. 112 of
VDOT on-line CSection100)
50. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method "A" on plans (107.01 p. 113 of
CSection100).
51. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 p. 115 of CSectionl00).
52. Provide VDOT Std. PB-1, Bedding and Backfill /Box Culverts, Method "A" on plans (107.04 —p. 116
of CSection100).
53. Provide VDOT Std. DSB-1, Bedding for Inlet, MH, and JB on plans (106.15, p. 111 of CSection100).
54. Provide VDOT 2016 VDOT R&B Spec. Note (303.04(g)):
[image removed with Rev. I]
Also:
[image removed with Rev. I]
Comments 55, 56, sent to Planning Division review coordinator as email: 7/10/2018 12:15 PM
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. (Rev. 1) Engineering defers to VDOT. Applicant response: `The proposed 200' X 200'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
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.' Engineering accepts response, defers to VDOT.
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."
(Rev. 1) Applicant response: `We disagree that this area shall not be allowed to be counted as
Amenity Space or SWMBMP 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.' Areas that coincide with 70' reservation zone or 30' landscape buffer,
unless approved through/by zoning action, exist as proposed SWM Forest/Open Space Easement as a
partial compliance strategy to meet state stormwater management water quality requirements. Other
SWM compliance options exist. Engineering contends that an area proposed as SWM Forest /Open
Space Easement may not exist in an area already designated for possible future widening of U.S. 250.
57. New: Recommend revise image of letter /document that appears on sheet 50; recommend print as
black text on white background.
58. New: Rather than (or in addition to) listing proffer #10 on sheet 2, Engineering recommends
Attached be included with FSP (shown on plans), since CTM is approved.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —x3069
Thank you
SDP201800031_Rivanna Village Phase 2—block F-G-H-I-J FSP_121418revl