HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800031 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2019-11-14COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Reviewer:
Project Coordinator:
Site Plan review
Rivanna Village Phase 2, Block F, G, H, I, & J —Final Site Plan
Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932
[alan[a,alanfranklinpe.com ]
Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
4 May 2018
23 Oct 2018
9 Apr 2019
10 Oct 2019
26 June 2018
14 Dec 2018
14 May 2019
14 Nov 2019
John Anderson
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 (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn, review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. Asefollow-up: Revise plan reference to read `WP0201800007, Approved 5/09/18.' (Rev. 2)
Comment persists. Please provide requested WPO plan reference on sheet 2. (Rev. 3)
Addressed. (Rev. 3) Addressed.
b. Provide vehicular access /Access easements to SWM facilities. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed;
though vehicular access may be shown on WP0201800007, easements must be recorded. May
require further work. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `overlooked this comment
after printing plans. SWM facility access routes will be identified on plan and updated sheet sent
to you. May require update to WPO.' Asfollow-up: Please address as soon as possible. (Rev. 3)
Partially addressed. As follow-up: Wherever BMP Access crosses curb/sidewalk, provide roll-top
/CG-6 transition so a vehicle may cross curb /walk, without damage. Sample locations: Lazy
Branch, Sta. 18+60± (BMP G1, Sheet 32), Mossy Rock Rd., Sta. 14+40 (BMP 12, Sheet 33).
Revise BMP J1, J2 SWM facility access, which is problematic. J1 Access from Mossy Rock Rd.,
Sta. 19+08 (Sheet 35) coincides with a DI. Roll-top curb /vehicular access is only possible by
mounting DI/CG-6, which leaves curb /DI vulnerable to damage. Also: Access to these BMPs is
proposed along 6' wide asphalt path not designed for vehicle traffic. Please ref. ACDSM, pg. 12:
provide adequate vehicle access to J1, J2, and every SWM facility. Ensure design changes transfer
to pending /revised WP0201800007 —ref. item 33, below. Text image, below:
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 8
Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management: All practices must have
adequate vehicle access; 10' width graded at less than 20%. Anything over 20% must be
surfaced with gravel or pavement. Access must be to all structures and forebay cleanout
areas. Easements must be provided over all access and facilities, to accompany deeds and
agreements as available on the county website;
http://www.albemarle.orp-/deptforms.asp?department=cdengno
Last: Similar to J1, J2, Acces to BMP H1 (Lazy Branch Lane, Sta. 25+60) coincides with DI, and
proposed landscapng impedes vehicle access to facility. At this BMP, only foot travel is possible.
A vehicle may not approach H1 riser or embankment crest. Please provide adequate vehicle
access per ACDSM (text, above). Please ensure all SWM facilities have adequate vehicle access.
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. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response:
'SWM/BMP easements to be on Subdivision Plat or on a prior Plat for to finalize WPO approval.'
Engineering accepts response as acknowledgment of plat recordation requirement, which may
occur with final subdivision plat. 5/9/19, Engineering met with Engineer /Developer, and
discussed idea of phased WPO bonds, which would require separately -recorded SWM Facility
/Access easement plats (each phase), and would require phase lines to be shown on this Site Plan.
(Rev. 3) Comment persists. Applicant response (10/8/19): 'SWM/BMP easements to be on
Subdivision Plat. The County Planner has told us we can't submit Subdivision plat until site plan
approval. Plat that was submitted will be deferred. Phase lines have been added to Sheet 4.'
Engineering accepts this response. [Note: Phases 2A, B, C, D appear on sheet 4, and are helpful
for phased Plat review /bonding. A final plat may be approved once all improvements associated
with a platted subdivision are bonded. This, in effect, requires independent final plats for Phases
2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. Albemarle anticipates separate Final Plats, one per phase, submitted on
varying timelines for independent review and comparison with approved Site, Road, and WPO
Plans. Comprehensive Rivanna Village Phase 2 Final Site, WPO201800007, and Road Plan
(SUB201900156) exist. These plans need to show phase lines. Multiple Final Site, WPO, or
Road Plans (per phase) are not required.]
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.
2. Road Plan Approval required prior to Final Site Plan Approval. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant
response: `Road Plan Application forthcoming.' (Rev. 2) Comment persists. See previous response, item
#1, above.' (Rev. 3) Comment persists. Road Plan, SUB2019001561 received 10/7/19, is under review.
3. Provide trail standard detail meeting Albemarle County Design Standards Manual Std.
4. Sheet 2, Note 17: Owner shall be responsible for posting the ESC bond. Revise note.
5. Sheet 2, Note 24: Appears incomplete. Please revise.
6. Sheet 4: Label all wetlands. Label 100' stream buffers.
7. A separate Road Plan is required. Please submit a Road Plan with Application and required fee.
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 (I48-I62) ADT —200. Mossy Rock Rd.
18 single-family (J39-J57) ADT =100 appears low, while Meander Way (12 single-family units, I35-147)
ADT =100, is more reasonable. Reference ITE Trip Generation Manual, most recent volume, when
calculating ADT.
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
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 8
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. (Rev. 3) Comment persists. CBC Engineers (Contech) Design
Report, rev. 7/22/19, distributed to VDOT 10/7/19 for Culpeper District Bridge and Structure Division review,
and approval. Comments relating to VDOT road and bridge specifications persist, through road plan approval.
Site plan approval requires Road Plan approval. Report/s via links in A. Franklin email, 8/2/2019 11:22 AM.
10. Ref. 2016 VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications for pre -cast arch requirements /302.03.b. (Rev. 2, 3)
Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
(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. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists.
See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
12. Illegible Specifications for Manufacture and Installation of CONTECH BridgeCor® Arch Structure is of
particular concern. Please provide legible Mfr./Installation text. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8,
above. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
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.
(Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
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.
(Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
15. Provide reinforcement detail, including plan /profile views with dimensions, for reinforced concrete arch
footing. (Rev. 1) Not addressed. See item 8, above. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. See Applicant
response, item #18, below.'
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. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. See Applicant
response, item #18, below.'
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. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. See Applicant response, item #18, below.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4of8
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. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Comments
#10418 to be addressed with Road Plans and Bridge Details (Contech) review.' (Rev. 3) Also, item 10,
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]:
�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 1-4.
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(f). Please provide Q25 analysis for this structure, unless overlooked. Q25 analyses for
structures on Lazy Branch Lane are accepted. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Arch
span at Terrapin Trace is oversized, not to disturb the meandering channel banks at this location per our
DEQ permit. Q2 analysis not provided due to no constriction of channel. Please let me know if you still
need this analysis when you get to this review. I will have it done by then and I may provide it to you
shortly after this plan submittal.' As follow-up: Please provide Q2 analysis, when available. (Rev. 3)
Addressed. Q2 analysis (Attachment to A. Franklin, email: 8/2/2019 11:22 AM): 2yr analysis depth=0.98'.
(Stream) Inv. Elev.=359.99; 2yr water surface elevation=360.97'f. Approx. crown elev. of 28'-10" arch
span x 7'-5" rise arch z365'. There is sufficient clearance /x-sectional area (opening) beneath arch span.
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'f).
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 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. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Asefollow-up:
Although proposed Forest /Open Space easements under WPO201800007 were approved, if Forest /Open
Space easements are 1' 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,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 8
consistent with DEQ guidance. County will strive to minimize any delay of issuance of Grading permit for
Phase 2 development. (Rev. 3 Note: Erosion Control /Gradingpermit issued 10/30/19.)
(https://www.deg.virginia.jzov/portals/0/deg/connectwithdeg/traininiz/swm/planreviewswm pg module4.pdf
) (Rev. 3) Applicant response: `Coordination between WPO, Final Site Plan, and County Engineering is
still ongoing. Revised WPO to match Final Site Plan has been finalized and will be submitted immediately
following grading permit issuance based on the approved WPO plans.' Engineering accepts this response.
Sheet 34
[image removed with Rev. I]
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. (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.
(Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Easements have been adjusted as needed with the
revisions on this site plan and I have coordinated with the preparer of the WPO Plans [Blossom
Consulting/Engineering]. An amendment to the WPO Plan is planned to "match up" the revised site plan
and the ESC/SWM Plans and to incorporate any require revisions to the BMP easements.' (Rev. 3)
Comment persists: Applicant response: `[ same as above ]' Engineering accepts this response. Provided
revised WPO (revised to match Final Site Plan) is submitted prior to Final Site Plan approval, Engineering
should be positioned to recommend FSP approval. Design elements in question (inconsistencies) relate to
easements. Easements will be recorded with the Final Plat. The Final Plat is deferred until FSP approval.
[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 /profile
data including invert in/out, rim, and profile: diameter, length, slope, etc. Provide drainage computations
/tables —consider spread, Q 1 o capacity. Note: Min. pipe diameter is 12". Link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/Community Development/forms/Engin
eering_and _WPO _Forms/Engineering_Review_Drainage_ Plans_ Checklist_1Dec2014.pdf
Also: Provide yard drains at: Lots 1-32 thru 1-36 (sheets 28/32); 1-48 thru 1-57 (back yards, sheet 29); J-39
thru J-44 (front yards, sheets 33/35). [ image removed with Rev. 1]
[image removed with Rev. I]
35. Sheet 37: Revise proposed grades that intersect porches, walks, etc., unless intentional image,
(Review all sheets.) [image removed with Rev. 1 ]
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. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
[ 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. (-Massy Roek
Rd. etrldesaefor example shoot 35; image removed with Rev. 1)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6of8
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. `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 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 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." (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Modular
block wall details will be included in the Contech details package. In the meantime, I have added simple,
typical details showing how these improvements can/will be constructed with notes directing the contractor
to use the permit drawings provided by structural engineer.' Asefollow-up: Please provide Contech details
package (to include endwalls designed to VDOT standards) as soon as possible. (Rev. 3) Addressed
/Elements persist. Applicant response: `The Contech details package (digitally) was provided via email on
08/02/2019. Additional details will be included in the Circeo (Geotechnical PE) modular wall drawings
which will be provided as soon as I get them.' Engineering accepts this response and as discussed with
Alan Franklin and Tim Culpepper, bridge elements generally will be reviewed and approved by VDOT as
part of 10/7/19 Road Plan submittal, currently under review. Also, please see pg. 2, above: Site plan
gpproval requires Road Plan approval. [373-pg. Contech Report was received as email link, A. Franklin
email, 8/2/2019 11:22 AM.]
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 2172, 2173, 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)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 8
50. Provide VDOT Std. P13-1, Pipe Bedding and Backfill, Method `A " on plans (107.01 p. 113 of
CSection 100).
51. Provide VDOT Std. P13-1, Pipe Arch Bedding and Backfill on plans (107.03 p. 115 of CSection100).
52. Provide VDOT Std. P13-1, Bedding and Backfill /Box Culverts, Method "A" on plans (107.04 —p. 116 of
CSection100).
53. Provide VDOT Std. DSB-1, Beddingfor 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' 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. (Rev. 2, 3) Comment persists. Applicant response: `Noted.'
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. (Rev. 2) Partially addressed. Applicant response:
`The 70' reservation zone has been removed from the SWM/BMP Forest/Open Space Easement on this
plan, pending approval of revised WPO application, and from the Amenity Space calculations. The 30'
landscape buffer area will remain as both SWMBMP Forest/Open Space Easement and Amenity Space
because, unlike the reservation zone, this area will always be owned and maintained by Rivanna Village.'
As follow-up: R.O.W. Dedication label leader line (sheet 10) appears ambiguous. Please revise arrow to
identify a line (sheet 10). Please confirm that R.O. W. Dedication is identical with 70' reservation zone, else
label reservation zone. Engineering anticipates Reservation Zone and Forest/Open Space Easement will lie
on opposite sides of a line in vicinity of U.S. Rt. 250. (Rev. 3) Partially addressed. Applicant response:
`Errant arrow associated with the ROW Dedication: has been corrected. The 70' reservation zone in this
area is an offset from the dedication line. Plan corrected and additional labels added.' Although heavy
dash line -type appears on sheets 10, 11, additional labels (Applicant response) are missing. Please furnish
R.O.W. dedication label, sheet 11, and Reservation Zone and Forest /Open Space Easement labels, sheets
10 and 11, consistent with initial review comment (this item) and (pending) revised WPO Plan submittal
referenced at item 33, above. Rev. WPO Plan is required to `match up' Site Plan, Plat, WPO, and Road
Plan SWM Facility, SWM Facility Access, and SWM Forest /Open Space Easements.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 8 of 8
57. New: Recommend revise image of letter /document that appears on sheet 50; recommend print as black
text on white background. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant response: `...will work on getting a
better image for the signature set.' Engineering accepts this response. (Rev. 3) Withdrawn. All
information on Sheet 50 is legible.
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. (Rev. 2) Comment persists. Applicant
response: `Approved CTM added as Sheet 72 of the set and reference to Sheet 72 made on Sheet 2 Proffers
section.' As follow-up: Digital submittal ends with sheet 68. Please include sheet 72, and 69-71. (Rev. 3)
Addressed.
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_111419rev3