HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201700187 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2019-03-09COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road and Drainage plan review
Project title: Crozet Court
Project file number: SUB201700187
Plan preparer: Shimp Engineering [Justin@shimp-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: Stony Point Design/Build LLC
Chris Henry [chenry@stonypointdb.com]
Date Received:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
1 November 2017
5 Jul 2018
5 Feb 2019 (Rev. 2)
15 December 2017
31 Jul 2018
9 Mar 2019 (Rev. 2)
Matt Wentland
John Anderson (Rev. 1, 2)
Keane, we have reviewed the road plans and have the following comments:
Engineering
1. It is not clear how the flow from the 15" CMP under Claudius Ct. next to the proposed entrance will reach
the inlet on Lot 17. Provide more detailed grading in this area to verify the neighboring property will be
unaffected by the Jamestown Road construction. (Rev. 1) Pending. Met with Applicant on 7/12/18 to
discuss bypass flow. See Engineering email: 7/18/2018 8:30 AM. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Grading Plan,
C5, must include entire development and likely requires a separate grading sheet with drawing scale needed
to construct ditch 4A to eliminate development or drainage impact to TMP #56D-A-5, Ralston (recommend
F-0" contours; 1"=10' scale inset drawing). Ditch 1 must be included in the grading plan, not just C8,
Landscape Plan.
2. Show easements on all the proposed ditches and pipes. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asfollow-up, provide sight
distance and segmental block retaining wall maintenance easement (portion of wall is in Open Space Parcel
A). Engineering recommends Maintenance Easement cover entire wall, as this wall ensures no disturbance
to existing cemetery, a prerequisite to development. (Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Asfollow-up: Wall
Easement, C3, is slightly outside physical face of wall, but so limited as to provide inadequate access for
virtually any required maintenance or replacement. Increase wall easement width to provide normal access,
and to accommodate typical routine repair, maintenance, or replacement. Estimate need 12'f space either
side of the 8' segmental block retaining wall (but less at known limits of cemetery, and to exclude
cemetery).
3. Provide Deed Book references or copies of signed agreements for any off -site construction easements (such
as on the 960 Claudius Ct. property). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: No off -site construction is
proposed.
New
4. Revise Road Plan title to include SUB201700187. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
5. Title /C1: Revise Subdivision and Road Note #2 to reference Open Space labeled as A on sheet 3. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
6. Title /C1: Reference Subdivision and Road Note #9: Revise design to reflect 25 mph. Delete reference to
20 mph design. Revise accordingly, Min. Ksag, etc. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Applicant response:
`Jamestown road will function primarily as an emergency access road. We predict that almost no residents
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
will use this road because it does not directly connect to Park Road, the access road to the entire
neighborhood, therefore, Jamestown Road is out of the way and would cause a longer trip for each house in
the proposed Crozet Court subdivision. This road serves as a secondary connection for emergency vehicles,
and thus we have designed it with a design speed of 15 mph.' Engineering rejects this rationale.
Jamestown is a public road. Future development in the Crozet area may make Jamestown a preferred route
for subdivision access to or from points east (with construction of the eastern connector, for example).
Delivery vehicles may use Jamestown Road with high frequency. VDOT design standards apply. Please
consider initial review comment, and design for 25mph speed, minimum.
C3
7. Label roadway PC, PT, radius of horizontal curvature. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Show requested design
information on C3, Layout Plan.
8. Provide roadway stationing. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Provide on C3. Appreciate stationing on C6 and
C7, but stationing on C3 is required.
9. Label CG-6 turndowns at intersection with Park Street and Claudius Court. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Show
on C3, even if shown elsewhere.
10. Provide detail for CG-6 taper from 6" height to flush (0" height /turndown). (Rev. 2) Not addressed.
Applicant response: `Additional detail added.' Cannot locate detail on plans. Specify sheet with this detail.
11. Show residential driveway entrance aprons accurately (CG-913). Entrances shown are inaccurate, and may
be misleading. (Rev. 2) Not addressed.
12. Provide 6" wide solid white pavement markings with VDOT spec. for pavement markings, at each proposed
CG-12 crosswalk (5, total). (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn. Applicant response: `VDOT did not request
this, we do not typically see this in subdivision street crosswalks.' Ref. Albemarle County Engineer email
to plan review staff, 3/8/2019 9:47 AM: "The road plan for Out of Bounds showed crosswalk striping where
the short private roads intersected the main public road and at a crossing that crossed the public road. VDOT
accepted the public road without requiring the striping for their road. [NAME] asked if the striping was
required for the short private road connections, stating there is very little traffic. I agreed and it appears
VDOT agrees striping isn't required or preferred for small developments."
13. Show and label extents of cemetery. Provide and show permanent barrier protection on VSMP /WPO and
-,>ss road plan sheets to avoid mishap. Clearly label cemetery boundary. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
14. Show sight distance triangles. Provide sight distance easement/s, as needed. (Rev. 2) Partially addressed.
Label sight distance lines on C6 and C8 (Park Rd. -Park Place Int.). Provide and label sight distance lines
at intersection Jamestown Road and Park Place, C6. Provide and label sight distance lines at intersection
Jamestown Road and Claudius Court, C7.
C4
15. Label A2 — Al pipe diameter /pipe material. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
16. Label E2 — E1 pipe diameter /pipe material. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
17. Revise E3 — E2 pipe diameter to 18". LD-229 shows this pipe at 98.3% of capacity, too close to capacity
threshold. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn. Note to designer; from Drainage Plan checklist: "A drainage
plans is typically a component of a road plan, site plan, or stormwater management plan." Applicant
response: `Biofilter outlet pipe is dependent on biofilter design per HydroCAD model. This is not governed
by VDOT pipe requirements since it does not convey water from the street, therefore size will be kept.' It
appears that with this road plan, and recent site plan, county review comments have elicited a striking
response. While fair to question authority, purpose of comments is largely to ensure compliance with
standards designed to protect life and property. If design wishes to proceed at 98.3% of capacity against
Engineering request, if P.E. is willing to seal plans and transfer repair responsibility to the development
community (HOA), so be it, but please be advised: Drainage Plan checklist specifically cites VDOT
drainage manual (Drainage, item 2) in context of road, site, and SWM plans. Design is not free to reject
VDOT requirements, review checklists, or safe and reliable performance. If designer insists on design at
98.3% of Qio_rr pipe capacity, Engineering cautions against avoidable risk.
18. Revise E2 — E 1 pipe diameter to 18", consistent with sheet C 12, outlet table, and storm line profile. Also,
LD-229 shows this pipe at 98.3% of capacity, which is unacceptable. With no margin of error, apply
conservative design principles. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn. Ref. item 17, above.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
19. Revise B2 — B 1 pipe diameter to 18", consistent with sheet C 12, outlet table. (Rev. 2) Comment NA.
20. Revise design at Str. A4: Departing pipe to Str. A3 forms acute angle with inlet pipe from Str. A4A. (Ref.
Drainage Checklist /Drainage item #9 —direction of flow change.) (Rev. 2) Addressed.
21. Overreliance on 15" DIA drainage pipes violates drainage computation checklist item #1: "All proposed
systems are designed within open channel flow capacities. (HGL computations are not necessary, and
should not be relied upon unless the entire system is to be watertight)." If system is to be watertight,
provide necessary specifications and details for pipe and MH joints; gasket material, installation guidelines
and inspection, etc. The following structures have inlet water elevation higher than top of pipe: A5, A4, A2,
B5, B4, B3, B2. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
22. VDOT Drainage Calculation Packet: provide LD-347 for C-series pipes. (Rev. 2) Pending. Please submit
.PDF of revised VDOT Drainage Calculation Packet. Print copy may have become separated from print
plans. Engineering will review within 3 days of receipt, and update comments. Regret any inconvenience.
23. LD-204 shows inlet depth, Str. A5=0.91'. If accurate, revise so that depth at curb <0.375'. (Rev. 2)
Pending. Please submit .PDF of revised VDOT Drainage Calculation Packet. Print copy may have
become separated from print plans. Engineering will review within 3 days of receipt, and update comments.
Regret any inconvenience.
24. Show graded ditch line on north side of Jamestown Road between Claudius Court and Lot 17 (also, item #1,
above), per 7/12 discussion, and 7/18 Engineering email. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Insufficient detail.
Also, please see item 11 above.
C5:
25. Ref. item #24; show grading. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Also, item 1, above.
26. Extend existing terrain contours at least 50' beyond property lines. (Rev. 2) Comment withdrawn.
Applicant response: `We do not have this survey data. We do not typically have this as it is on other
properties which we do not have access to.' Reviewer unable to cite requirement supporting request.
27. Ditch 1 may not cross more than 3 lots. Provide yard inlet on parcel line between lot 3 and 4, and on parcel
line between lot 6 and 7. Provide storm collection system from Lot 3 yard inlet to BMP A. (Ref. Drainage
Checklist /Drainage item #11 —provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots). (Rev. 2) Not
addressed. Applicant response: `Plans revised. Ditches are in private easements.' Ref. Drainage Plan
checklist, Drainage, last item: "provisions and easements for drainage across 3 or more lots. Dense
development where fencing, decking, etc is expected should provide yard inlets and pipes in easements,
rather than ditches." This is a standard review item; a checklist item. Provisions implies collection.
Appreciate easements. Provide collection (yard inlets); revise design.
28. Label streets. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
29. C6, Crozet Court Profile: Provide VDOT underdrain near Int. Jamestown Rd. at Int. proposed -Ex. grade.
(Rev. 2) Not addressed. County checklist requirement. Please provide underdrain at Crozet Court Sta.
13+80 and 15+00(f), else specific VDOT 2016 Road and Bridge Standard or Specification at odds with
county checklist requirement. Applicant response: `Underdrains are typically not provided for streets with
such low traffic per VDOT standards.' Ref. Road Plan review checklist,.44: "cross drain locations shown
and labeled with VDOT designations (CD-1,2) at ever major cut and fill transition or sag curve." Design that
inadequately addresses or rejects checklist requirements may have a delayed or more difficult path to approval.
30. C7: Revise Jamestown Road profile to meet minimum Ksag value for 25 mph, AASHTO Table 3-36 /image,
below. Ksag_Min.(25 MPH) =26. Note: K-value label is incorrect; proposed K =9.71. (Rev. 2) Not addressed.
Applicant response: `Jamestown Road designed with speed = 15 mph, Kmin =9.4, see note 6 above.'
Engineering does not accept this rationale. See item 6, above.
Table 3-36, Design Controls for Sag Vertical Curves
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Metric
Stopping
Sight Dis-
tance (m)
Rate of Vertical
Curvature, Ka
Design
Speed
(mph)
U.S. Customarygo
Stopping
Sight Dis-
lance (ft)
Rate of Vertical
Curvature, K°
Calculated
Design
Calculated
Design
20
20
2.1
3
15
so
9.4
10
30
35
5.1
6
20
115
16.5
17
40
50
8.5
9
25
155
25.5
26
50
65
12.2
13
30
200
36.4
37
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
31. C8: Relocate tree in front of Lot 8-9, which is too close to storm drain pil (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
C12:
32. Provide Typ. details for IS-1, SL-1. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
33. Check Str. 132A against Table LD-347, HGL. Compare inlet WSE=624.82 with profile Inv. Elev. 629.50'.
Revise, as necessary. (Rev. 2) Pending. Please submit .PDF of revised VDOT Drainage Calculation
Packet. Print copy may have become separated from print plans. Engineering will review within 3 days of
receipt, and update comments. Regret any inconvenience.
34. Label Str. B3 in profile view as requiring SL-1. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
35. Outlet protection table: La pipe outfall D 1 is listed as 9' in calculation packet. Revise as necessary. (Rev.
2) Addressed. Applicant response: `It is now 34' provided to pass over the ex. sanitary pipe per ACSA
request.'
36. New: Label roads, sheets C6, C7.
Planning (Cameron Languille)
(Rev. 2) comments FW: to Applicant 3/5/2019 1:33 PM.
Fire Rescue (Shawn Maddox)
(Rev. 2) comments FW: to Applicant 3/5/2019 1:35 PM.
VDOT (Adam Moore)
(Rev. 2) VDOT comments FW: to Applicant 3/8/2019 11:50 AM.
Albemarle ARB (Heather McMahon)
(Rev. 2) comments FW: to Applicant 3/5/2019 1:36 PM.
Albemarle CDD GIS (Andrew Walker)
(Rev. 2) CDD GIS comments FW: to Applicant 3/5/2019 1:41 PM.
Engineering plan review staff are available 2-4 PM on Thursdays, should you request meeting to discuss this review.
Proep-
After approval, plans will need to be bonded.
County forms /checklists can be found on the county website forms center under engineering;
htW://www.albemarle.or /g deptforms.asp?department=cdengmTo
If you have questions or concerns, please contact me at janderson2&albemarle.org, or at 434-296-5832 ext. 3069.
Thank you
J. Anderson
SUB201700187 Crozet Court Road Plans 030919rev2.doc