HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900156 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2020-06-16Phone (434) 296-5832
Project:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
Reviewer:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4126
Road Plan review
Phase 2 Rivanna Village —Road Plans Associated with SDP2018-31, Block
F,G,H,I,&J
Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932
[alan&alanfranklinpe.com ]
Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100
Norfolk, VA 23510
7 Oct 2019
12 Mar 2020
6 May 2020
30 Nov 2019
18 Apr 2020
16 Jun 2020
John Anderson
SUB201900156 -Road Plan
1. Include SUB2019-00156 in Road Plan title. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Sheet 18 /others: Shitft parallel parking which occurs on inside of curves to outside curve curb edge. Sight
line is obstructed by inside curve parking; this parking configuration is inherently hazardous (One example:
drivers, pedestrians and children exiting vehicles or even opening doors into obstructed sight -line path of
cars approaching at or above posted speed limit). Provide stopping distance sight lines that meet VDOT
standards, if design proposes inside curb parking. Alternatively, revise parallel parking design at each
occurrence of inside curve parking. See sheets 14, 18, etc. Ref. sheet 15 for acceptable outside curve curb-
side parallel parking. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response (3/11/20): `The street parking on the inside
radius of Meander Way was removed. We were unable to accommodate this request on Lazy Branch Lane.
The road and neighborhood layout for Rivanna Village, since rezoning documents, has included a centrally
located park with parking for the park occurring on the adjacent streets. Plan review comments and
revisions have slowly and dramatically decreased the feasible number of on street parking spaces of Lazy
Branch Lane. For instance, a tee -intersection at Lazy Branch Lane and Cattail Court was converted to a
sweeping curve of Lazy Brach Lane. This change essentially eliminated any parking along the outer
perimeter of Lazy Branch due VDOT sight distance requirements, so the road section was reduced to
parking on one side only. An additional requirement was that street parking for the park had to be within a
certain distance of the park. We have also removed street parking spaces that were tight between
driveways and at points of BMP access to address concerns. Without the parking spaces as shown on the
revised plan, the park's (calculated) parking requirement cannot be met. The VDOT design standards for
speed, horizontal geometry, and vertical geometry include consideration for the presence of on -street
parking. We feel confident that the proposed roadways meet VDOT standards and will be safe
neighborhood streets.' Engineering accepts response.
3. VDOT must review and approve detailed geotechnical report and CBC Engineers /Contech calculations
and shop drawings for drainage structures on proposed public roads. VDOT must approve detailed
headwall /retaining wall designs associated with drainage structures. Building inspections must approve
detailed retaining wall designs for walls requiring building permits. (Rev. 1, 2) Comment persists.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
VDOT requires revised right-of-way at culvert and arch bridge structures. From VDOT email (Braden
Chapman, Asst. District Bridge Engineer, Culpeper, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:37 PM): `As an average, we need a
minimum right of way to cover the limits/perimeter of the structure and a minimum of 10' (prefer 15') of
permanent easement in order to perform routine inspections and most regular maintenance work. If right of
way can be acquired rather than an easement, this is also preferred. But this is a general minimum we go
by.' As follow-up to district email, Adam Moore, Asst. Resident Engineer — Land Use, Charlottesville
Residency, writes (April 17, 2020 3:55 PM): `The bridge definitely needs to be wholly within right of way.
Additionally, 10 ft. of access space is required. This is preferably right of way as well but could also be
permanent access easements.' Revised right of way should extend beyond limits of arch span bridges, and
culverts, upstream and down, and must include headwall retaining walls. As follow-up: For retaining walls
adjacent to sidewalks, within proposed or revised right-of-way, or with vertical interval from top of wall to
proposed grade > 4-ft.:
a. Provide VDOT handrail labels in plan view, and reference VDOT HR-1 civil detail (attached).
b. Include VDOT handrail std. detail with other civil details (VDOT HR-1), or equivalent.
c. Provide agreement between developer and Albemarle County that developer will maintain all
retaining walls located outside public right-of-way. Reviewer is not primary point of contact on
maintenance agreements but may be able to direct Applicant to staff better able to assist.
d. Revise retaining wall designs to depict VDOT HR-1, or equivalent, rather than handrail presently
depicted. VDOT standard specifies maximum width of opening beneath the lowest horizontal rail
and also between successive vertical pickets to prevent objects larger than this maximum
dimension from passing beneath the lowest rail or passing between pickets. Maximum widths are
intended as a safety feature. Please note walls D and E distance from sidewalks adjacent to
handrails to stream approaches eighteen (18) feet, so safety is a concern.
Walls — jzeneral
e. Revise right of way at culverts /arch span bridge structures. Revise final site plan, as needed.
f. Provide 10' min. wide permanent access easement for maintenance of bridge or culvert structures.
See 4/17/20 VDOT email, above.
g. Note: VDOT may require retaining walls associated with drainage structures meet a VDOT
retaining wall standard. It is unclear that segmental block retaining walls proposed with 12/01/19
Michael R. Circeo design will be acceptable to VDOT Structure Bridge Division (Mesa Standard
Segmental Retaining Walls: Fifteen (15) walls labeled Wall A, B, C ... M, N, O).
h. Revise Circeo retaining wall design to accommodate VDOT residency or VDOT district bridge
and structure comments.
Roads must be built or bonded prior to final site plan approval, and prior to final subdivision (plat)
approval. (Rev. 1, 2) Comment persists. Applicant acknowledges.
For horizontal curves, provide all horizonal curve data, not just arc length and radius. Ref. VDOT Road
Design Manual, Ch. 2D, image below [ link: (Rev. 1) Addressed.
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/RDM/chap2d.pdf ]
DEPICTING HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ON PLANS
P.I.'s, P.C.'s, P.T.'s, etc., curve data, bearings, deltas, direction of angle and tie stations
are to be shown where applicable as outlined in Section 2C-5 (Curve Data).
Provide calculation of all ADTs, which in several instances appear on the low side, given proposed number
of units. Provide for all streets (provide ITE Manual ref. values). Additional comments possible. (Rev. 1)
Comment withdrawn, review error. Addressed 12/14/18 (Engr. final site plan review comment, item 8.)
Name (A, B, C... ) and label retaining walls in plan view; sheets 11, 13, 14, etc. Provide detailed, PE -
sealed geotechnical retaining wall designs. All wall ht. > 3-ft. require a building permit. All wall ht. > 4-ft.
require PE -sealed structural plans. All retaining walls integrated with drainage structures, that serve as
headwalls, wingwalls, etc., require VDOT review and approval (Also, item 3, above). Submit sealed
retaining wall plans for Engineering, VDOT, and CDD Building Inspections review as soon as possible.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. 12/01/19 Michael R. Circeo, PE, retaining wall designs for 15 walls are
under review by VDOT, with comments relating to right-of-way, use with drainage structures, handrails,
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
and agreements listed at item 3, above. Building inspections will review Circeo designs with building
permit application/s for retaining walls. Any retaining wall > 3-ft. ht. requires a building permit. Submittal
of Circeo designs with road plan does not qualify as a building permit application. Applicant must
coordinate building permit requirements with County building inspections division. (Rev. 2) Persists.
Sheet 14, Lot I-36: Show drive entrance. Remove parking space/s blocking driveway entrance. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
9. Sheet 14, Lots J-34,-35, -36, etc.: Provide auto-tum for vehicle exiting lots. Confirm it is possible to exit
and turn right without crossing street centerline. If not, reduce /revise proposed on -street parallel parking.
See, for example, proposed reduced and limited on -street parallel parking on Butterfield Lane, between
Lazy Branch Lane and Meander Way, sheet 14. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
10. Note: In print plan set/s, there are two sheet 14s. Remove duplicate. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
11. Sheet 19: Remove cul-de-sac parking which limits fire -rescue apparatus Min. required turning radius.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
12. Sheet 24: Revise vertical curve, Cattail Court (PVI Sta. 16+50). Min. k-value Sag=15. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
13. Sheet 24: Label % grade, Cattail Court (Sta. 15+40 — 16+20; assume: - 4%). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
14. Sheet 28: — 180' LF U.S. Rt. 250 will be curbed, where once storm runoff exited via shoulder section.
Provide inlet, or storm comps showing inlet is not required for now-channelized flow on US Rt. 250. (Rev.
1) Addressed.
15. Sheet 28: Provide inlet or comps showing inlet not required at W end of Terrapin Trace. Storm runoff will
be channel flow when it reaches the end of this street. Provide conventional storm capture /conveyance
(inlet /pipe). Revise plan /profile views and table/s to include new inlets /pipes. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. As follow-up (Sheet 66): Please revise storm profile structure label to read SD2Y2. (Rev. 2)
Addressed.
16. Sheet 29: Provide inlet on west side of Mossy Rock Road closer to its intersection with Terrapin Trace,
especially given grade at intersection, which diverts runoff to the W side of Mossy Rock Road. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
17. Sheet 29: Provide 10' asphalt trail with 2' shoulders typical detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
18. Sheet 34: Provide curb elevations near N corner of Steamer Drive /Lazy Branch Lane intersection to ensure
positive drainage to inlet on Lazy Branch Lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
19. Sheet 34: Provide curb elevations near W corner of Village Park Ave. /Lazy Branch Lane intersection to
ensure positive drainage to inlet on Village Park Ave. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
20. Sheet 37: Provide inlet near PL, Lots J-23 - J-24 (best) to catch Qio runoff from 96' DIA cul-de-sac, else
drive entrances will flood. Alternatively, provide inlet at curb fronting Lot J-25. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. Sheet 38:
a. Update storm sewer pipe computations /tables, consistent with revised or new inlets. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
b. Label inlet MHs that require safety slab on profile sheets 64-68; footnote on this sheet may be
overlooked. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: SD2M10 appears to require SL-1. (Rev.
2) NA, since design revised.
c. Ensure tables reflect all inlets /storm pipes, proposed or existing (Rivanna Village Phase 2).
Comment is courtesy request for double-check (nothing appears amiss). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
22. Sheet 63: Revise 2S15 L (inlet throat length). This is a carryover inlet for inlet 2S15, yet L/Lt —0.43.
Increase 2S15 throat length to provide a more conservative design (L/Lt closer to 1.0). (Rev. 1)
Withdrawn. Applicant response: `Unable to accommodate the request to increase the SD2S 15 throat
length due to space constraints as the inlet is located between two driveway apron cuts.'
23. Sheet 63: Recommend increase throat length of storm inlet structure 2X5-1 (L/Lt=0.61). (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
24. Sheets 64-68 (Storm profiles): Update with safety slab labels for manhole ht. >12'. (Rev. 1) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: See item 21.b., above. (Rev. 2) Addressed.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —0069
Thank you
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
SUB201900156 Rivanna Village Phase 2 block F-G-H-I-J Road Plan 061620rev-2