HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000059 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2020-05-12 (2)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Road Plan Review
Project title:
EcoVillage Charlottesville (Road & Utility Plan)
Project file number:
SUB2020-00059
Plan Preparer:
Keane Rucker, Shimp Engineering keane(a)shimp-enizineering com
Shimp Engineering P.C., 912 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Owner or rep.:
EcoVillage Holdings Inc., 480 Rio Road East, Charlottesville, VA 22901
HFCUSA.ORG(a)GMAIL.COM
Plan received date:
2 April 2020
Date of comments:
12 May 2020
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SUB2020-00059
Note: E-mail sent to Applicant 5/12/2020 3:41 PM is relevant. Also, items 4, 6, below.
Cl
1. Revise Relevant Plans section to reference Road Plan SUB202000059.
2. Ensure revised road plan matches revised SP2018-00016 (special use permit) and SDP201900067, Final
Site Plan.
3. Add SDP201900067 to the list of relevant plans.
4. Road Plan Note 2: Provide reference to prior approval that may exempt Roads B, C, & D from private
street standards. Engineering has not encountered a road plan that designates proposed private streets as
`intended for pedestrian and fire access only.' Note continues: `These streets are not designed for daily
vehicular traffic as none is anticipated. Please ref. 14-403, 14-404. Engineering may be unaware of an
approval relating to facilities labeled Roads B, C, & D. If so, please advise. If not, please align notes, ref.
to Roads B, C, & D, and design of these facilities to meet private street standards listed at 14-410, 14-
412.B., VDOT 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications, and Albemarle County Design Standards Manual.
5. Road Plan (SUB202000059) must be approved prior to final site plan approval (SDP201900067).
6. Note: Initial road plan review makes limited reference to Roads B, C or D design, since C1 Note appears to
designate each facility as a pedestrian (facility) and fire access road only. Significant revision is required to
align Roads B, C, & D (design) with ACDSM, VDOT, and ordinance requirements (standards) for private
streets. Private street standards, in turn, reflect VDOT 2016 R&B Standards. Also, item 4, above.
7. If road D is revised to meet private street standards, eliminate perpendicular parking along Road A since it
intersects Road D. Perpendicular parking is impermissible on private streets that continue, rather than
terminate in a parking area, or parking lot. A street intersecting another street comprise a network.
Reviewer is aware of two instances when similar designs were approved under special circumstance
(Emerson Commons, Timberwood Square) for developments later subdivided into privately -owned lots.
Contrast with site plans: apartments, for example, which are not divided into privately -owned lots. Review
of standards indicates perpendicular parking on streets is impermissible. Engineering is cautious if design
appears to depart from standards for this reason: once a design departure not otherwise approved via waiver
or variance is allowed to proceed for any one development, it is difficult to then deny approval of similar
design for subsequent development. Yet if past approval is in error, Engineering must abide by ordinance,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
VDOT, and ACDSM standards, as applicable. Perpendicular parking is relatively less safe than parallel
parking since perpendicular parking requires reverse maneuver to exit. It is disallowed by VDOT.
8. Note: Perpendicular parking is not approved for private streets. Contact Engineering to discuss, or
schedule teleconference, if helpful. Unfortunately, face-to-face meetings are not possible.
C2
9. Confirm guardrail along Rio Rd. E. is existing, and not to be installed with this project. C2 shows guardrail
using a heavy linetype typical of proposed improvements. Also, sheet C14 review comment, below.
10. Provide labels for county GIS-layer preserved steep slopes south of Rio Rd. E.
11. Ensure preserved steep slopes hatching matches GIS data south of Rio Rd. E. Also, ref. SDP201900067
Engineering review comment request for consistency between site plan and GIS, vis-a-vis preserved steep
slopes south of Rio Rd. E. (Engineering SDP201900067 comments pending.)
C3
12. Note: Roads B, C, D are not evaluated as streets since proposed design differs from a private street. If
these facilities are revised to meet private street standards, additional comments are possible.
13. Dumpster pads may not work /appear problematic at each of two locations. Provide auto -turn using typical
industry (wheelbase) design trash collection vehicle to prevent conflicts with proposed parking should
parking or proposed dumpster pad locations persist as designed, in locations shown.
Note: It appears doubtful a dumpster pad may work in either location given 20' travel lane width, and
geometry (Road A, Sta. 17+45 — 19+65, sheet C9, for example).
14. Consult with ACF&R on fleet fire -rescue apparatus wheelbase. Provide auto -turn figure at intersection of
Road A — Road D (base auto -turn fig. on ACF&R apparatus /wheelbase dimensions). Ensure bollard
placement provides whatever minimal clearance ACF&R may designate as necessary between ACF&R
vehicle/s and bollards at this location. Comment NA if Road D revised to meet private street standards,
since bollards omitted with private street design.
(Note: ACF&R comments [4/27/20] on final site plan do not object to SDP201900067 design, yet note
`There will need to be maintenance of the alternative surface roads to provide all weather access for
emergency vehicles.')
15. Provide CG-6 for private road `A' wherever final grade concentrates storm runoff against curb.
16. Label both curb radii at entrance to angled parking area located near Rio Rd. E.
17. Label radii of curbs at immediate exit of same parking area.
18. Revise `Roads B, C, & D' to meet private street standards; i.e., VDOT 2016 R&B standards.
19. Lots 9A thru 16A: Provide linework consistent with VDOT PE-1 detail (private entrance); that is, show
curved entrance radii at each driveway entrance.
20. Include PE-1 detail on plans.
21. Sign and stripe dedicated `turnaround' spaces as `No parking'.
22. Provide turnaround meeting ACDSM turnaround schematic, p. 20, that avoids conflict with pedestrians
using Road D. `Road D' may not be relied upon as a turnaround since it includes 5' sidewalk. Design
presents hazard to pedestrians, including risk posed by vehicles that travel to the end of Road A and use
`Road D' as a turnaround.
23. Provide plan, profile and section for Alley E.
24. C4: Provide CG-6 on east and west sides of Road W.
25. C3 & C4: Show full extent of fire -access (Road `D') on site layout (0) and grading plan (C4). Only the
utility plan (C6) Initial Road Plan shows most of the fire -access, but even C6 does not show connection of
fire -access to a public travel way.
26. Provide copy of plat /deed for shared driveway access with adjacent parcel [Peter Albert or Lisa Russ
Spaar; TMP #06100-00-00-188B0] since this deed or plat may inform or affect possible public access
during incident requiring fire -rescue apparatus to traverse a portion of a private residence driveway.
Driveway is located on EcoVillage parcel, and provides sole access to the Spaar residence. EcoVillage
owns entire extent of proposed fire -rescue access connecting with Rockbrook Drive, a public road, but an
approximate 250' length of proposed fire -rescue access serves as private driveway. Also, provide easement
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
dedicated to public use for proposed fire -rescue access across EcoVillage parcel (TMP #06100-00-00-
21000).
27. Add label (3_l, for example) for steepest section of newly constructed slopes to the east of the commercial
entrance. Grade not to exceed 3:1 at this location. [SP2018-16, EcoVillage Charlottesville, condition 3.a.]
C8
28. Please revise text block label on Road A Plan and Profile to read 40' Private Street, 20' travel width, 20
MPH design speed.
29. Label development entrance curb radii at Rio Rd. E.
30. It appears that stair -only access (non-ADA accessible) is provided between 5' sidewalk and 15-space
parking area near Rio Rd. E. Engineering defers to Planning on topic of ADA-access, whether required
between 5' sidewalk, which, apart from 10' multi -use pedestrian trail, provides the only pedestrian access
to the 15-space parking area.
31. Provide detail /section for 10' multi -use pedestrian trail. Provide label re£ to this detail.
32. Revise GR-2 labels to `GR-2 strong post guardrail.' Ref. detail, C11.
C9
33. Revise Road A sections to show CG-6 wherever super -elevation or crown directs concentrated runoff
against curb now designated CG-2.
34. Provide storm inlets, as needed, to convey concentrated runoff from CG-6 sections of Road A. Support
inlet design with LD-204 storm inlet computation sheets (spread /inlet capacity).
35. Once Roads B, C, & D are designed as private streets for vehicular traffic, revise plan and profiles, as
needed.
36. Provide Road B, C, & D sections showing subgrade, base stone, and asphalt layers of road sections, once
pedestrian /fire -access facilities revised to meet VDOT /private street standards. Ref. 14-410, 14-412.B.
Also, items 4, 6, above.
37. Ensure GeoSystems details (lower right corner) print legibly, if details persist in future road plan revisions.
38. Provide Dr, Dp for ADT =281, Road A, to correspond with sections showing 6" VDOT 21A base stone, 3"
BM-25 base asphalt, 1.5" SM-9.5A surface asphalt. [2018 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision
and Secondary Roads in Virginia]
39. Provide Geosystems data to ensure this `roadway' system can support fire -rescue apparatus weight of
vehicles used by Albemarle County.
C12
40. Update storm profiles to include any new inlets (Road A), or inlets required for private streets B, C, D.
41. Ensure any storm system comments on SDP201900067 reflect in revised Road Plan, and vice versa.
42. Ensure any storm system comments on WPO201900053 reflect in revised Road Plan, and vice versa.
43. Include Rio Rd. E. in storm profile, Al - A6. Rio Rd E. crosses 66.58' section of proposed 18" DIA HP -
Storm.
44. (and C5) Replace Str. G1 (24" Nyloplast basin) with VDOT Std. MH/frame.
45. Increase pipe diameter between Str. H2 and I1 to 12" min.; ref. Drainage Plan checklist for plan reviewers
(p. 2, drainage computations /pipe computations, item 2).
46. Revise all storm pipe DIA within public drainage easements to 12" DIA, min. unless calculations indicate
smaller DIA required to maintain scouring velocity. In that case, increase pipe slope to ensure scouring
velocity in 12" DIA storm lines.
47. Provide LD-204 (inlet computation sheet), LD-229 (storm drain design computations).
48. Ensure that `drainage improvements along Rio Road East are designed to manage the 25-year storm event
without flooding.' [SP2018-16, EcoVillage Charlottesville, condition 3.b.]
49. C13: Provide sight distance easement (looking left) for intersection sight distance at development entrance
on Rio Rd. E.
50. C14: Label GR-2 as existing in plan view. All Rio Rd. sections indicate guardrail existing (Ex. GR-2).
Also, item 9, above.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
51. New Rio Road Sections show 8% super -elevation grade break at Sta. 15+50. Provide a section for super -
elevation transition which occurs over a distance, not at a single point (Sta. 15+50).
52. Provide public drainage easements.
C15
53. Albemarle reminds that a VDOT Land Use permit is required for work within VDOT right-of-way.
54. Show /label 66.58' section of proposed storm pipe crossing beneath Rio Rd E with this project, since it is
an improvement within VDOT right-of-way.
55. Provide Narrative that discusses installation of storm pipe beneath Rio Rd E. Clarify whether open -cut
/trench or bore jack installation is proposed (comment does not request means /methods narrative).
56. VDOT approval is required for Road Plan approval.
Please feel free to call if any questions.
Thank you
I Anderson 434.296-5832 -0069
SUB202000059 EcoVillage RP 051220