HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201800220 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2020-08-10� AI
�h
�lRGIISP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(4341296-5832 Fax(4341972-4126
Road Plan Review
Project title:
Timberwood Square —Road Plan
Project file number:
SUB201800220
Plan preparer:
Dustin Greene, EIT—Roudabush, Gale & Associates [dgreene(a),,roudabush.coml
172 S. Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911
Owner or rep.:
Highlife Townhomes Inc., 307 West Rio Road [rhauser(a stonehaus.netl
250 Pantops Mountain Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Plan received date:
3 Dec 2018
(Rev. 1)
14 Mar 2019
(Rev. 2)
14 Nov 2019
(Rev. 3)
21 Jul 2020
(Rev. 4)
27 Jul 2020
(Rev. 5)
3 Aug 2010 —preview ; 8/3/2020 8:01 AM (.PDF)
Date of comments:
14 Jan 2019
(Rev. 1)
22 Mar 2019
(Rev. 2)
25 Nov 2019
(Rev. 3)
23 Jul 2020 —New comments
(Rev. 4)
29 Jul 2020
(Rev. 5)
10 Aug 2020
FSP Plan Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos /:cc
Reviewer: John Anderson — PIe ebi€stieH Note:follow-up comments
SUB201800220 — source: SDP201800071 review comments (Initial Site Plan Engr.)/erayscale. if NA for Road
Planor Addressed.
Single remaining item at 4 21.
1. Note: Combined (Engineering) Road Plan (SUB201500077) and Final Site Plan review comments
(SDP201500023) were sent to Applicant on 6/18/16 (Timberwood Square).
2. Final Site, Road, WPO Plans for this proposed development did not reach point of approval.
SDP201500023 (FSP) expired due to inactivity.
2a. Text of email sent to Applicant (8/31/2018 10:03 AM), reads, in par[: "... this application was
withdrawn in January due to inactivity in accordance with 32.4.3.5(b). In addition, your initial has expired
since it was approved in 2011 and that is only valid for 5 years. So, you will need to submit an initial site
plan and fee and start your application again."
2b. Text, email, Engineering to Planning (6/18/2016 2:11 PM -also RMS docs, SDP201500023):
"(SDP201500023) —Engineering has No Objection to ESP design. Engineering comments addressed with
this or prior submittal. ESP Approval requires ROAD Plan Approval, and requires that roads (Lois Lane,
Landon Lane) be built or bonded. ROAD Plan is not approved. ESP Approval requires that WPO be
approved and bonded. Planning coordinator should confirm that SWM Maintenance Agreements have
been signed, that project has received VPDES Permit coverage letter from DEQ. Please confirm WPO
status with Max Greene, Engineering Div." (1/14/19 review) Comment persists; no immediate action
required. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant response: `SWM Maintenance Agreement will be
provided prior to ESP approval. WPO approval and ESP approval required for Road plan approval noted.'
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
(Rev. 2) Addressed. Note: SWM Agreement was recorded 9/5/19. WPO201900015 was approved
10/17/19, VARION359 (DEQ permit) was issued 10/24/19, Eff 7/l/19, and is active. Please see item 13
(bond /road acceptance).
3. Current SDP201800071, Initial Site Development Plan for Timberwood Square, maybe identical with
SDP201500023. Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SDP201500023
(since basis of SDP201800071) since Final Site Plan set dated 8 Jun 2016 (2' Revision). If no changes,
please respond 'SDP201500023 is identical with SDP201800071'.
4. Lot Lines are illogical, apart from property valuation purposes. It is unorthodox to place half a private
street easement within lots (Lois Lane). If SDP201800071 is identical with SDP201500023, and lot lines
shown are permissible by ordinance, and /or previously reviewed and accepted by Planning Division, then
Engineering does not object. Otherwise, provide conventional right-of-way (RW). RW prevents any
portion of Lois Lane being included with Lots 25 - 32.
5. Ch. 14 Division 5, Procedures for the Approval of Private Streets, Sec. 14-233, When private streets in
development areas may be authorized is relevant. It appears no element of initial site plan approval
persists, and that request for approval of private streets in the development area is required. (1/14/19) Since
private roads are being proposed, please submit private street authorization request. Please ref. Sec. 14-
233 for procedure. Recommend contact and coordinate with ESP review coordinator. (Rev. 1) Applicant
response: `A private street authorization request has been provided with this submittal.' Request added to
review queue under SDP201800087. County Engineer review of request pending. (Rev. 2) Pending:
Engineering recommendation to Agent to approve private street authorization request is pending review
/approval of revised Road Plan. Engineering has no objection, but ACFR, VDOT, Planning, and possibly
ACSA /County GIS must also review the road plan and recommend approval (Also Engineering comments,
SDP201800087, 15-Nov 2019). (Rev. 3) Private street authorization request approval may be pending.
Engineering defers to Planning.
6. Street design standards: Engineering recently met with RGA (10/4/18) to discuss conceptual layout for
770 Rio Road East. VDOT and AASHTO standards apply to street design for six or more lots, and apply
to Timberwood Square, If RGA can accept county position that in this particular instance, since a Road
Plan CL radius of 110' (Lois Lane) was accepted in 2016, and Road Plan was virtually approved, provided
RGA does not reference 110' CL radius in future applications unless supported by VDOT /AASHTO
standards, then Engineering will not reverse and require what would amount to major redesign of Lois
Lane. Options: Indicate understanding of County willingness to approve a 110' CL radius for Lois Lane,
identify VDOT /AASHTO reference to 110' CL radius (Engineering is unaware of a CL radius standard
this low); redesign Lois Lane to meet VDOT /AASHTO CL radii standards. Engineering welcomes RGA
acceptance that if I I Y CL radius is less than published applicable VDOT /AASHTO standards,
Engineering does not in the future intend to accept 110' (or any measure of) radius that does not meet
VDOT /AASHTO minimum design parameters. (1/14/19) Applicant ISP comment response (11/30/18
letter): `The 110' radius is allowed in grandfathered developments with an ADT less than 400.'
Engineering comment: Grandfathered status does not apply; for the record, 110' is (typically) insufficient
horizontal radius of curvature, but is accepted in this instance. No design revision required. (Rev. 1)
Applicant response: `Noted.'
7. Related to item 4., above, large portions of back yards of Lots 25 — 32 are in proposed landscape
easement, trail easement, or ACSA easement. This is problematic, but Engineering defers to Planning on
whether lot lines, Lots 25-32, meet ordinance.
8. Related to items 4. and 7., Landon Lane is shown entirely within lots. No RW is provided. If Landon
Lane is to serve as a private street established with subdivision, please provide right-of-way required for
private streets. Lois Lane and Landon Lanes are not yet approved as private streets. They are public roads,
by default. They are not alleys. They require, whether public roads or private streets, right-of-way. Please
revise affected lot lines to provide public road /private street RW for both Lois Lane and Landon Lane.
9. Submit Road Plan that addresses remaining Road Plan review comments, at earliest convenience.
Engineering requests cloud revisions for any design change made to SUB201500077 Road Plan set
received 7 Jun 2016 (2nd Revision). If no changes, please state `Road Plan submittal identical with most
recent Road Plan for Timberwood Square, SUB201500077.' Again, please show any changes as cloud
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
revisions. (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Due to the nature of these comments there have been too many
changes to just cloud them on the plans. Please review accordingly.'
10. Carefully review Engineering Division Road and Site Plan comments dated 18-Jun 2016. (Also
Attached. Also in CV.) (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Comments have been reviewed and the plan has
been updated accordingly.' No action required.
11. Final Site Plan Approval requires Planning Division to authorize private streets in the development
area, if private streets are proposed. (1/14/19) Applicant response: `Private roads are being proposed.
Comment noted.' As follow-up: Please coordinate private street authorization request with ESP plan
coordinator, Tori Kanellopoulos. Also, item 5., above. (Rev. 1, D Comment persists. Also, item 5., above.
(Rev. 3) Private street authorization request approval may be pending. Engineering defers to Planning.
12. Final Site Plan Approval requires Road Plan meet VDOT-AASHTO standards, with exception outlined
in item 6., above. (1/14/19) No action, or design revision required.
13. Final Site Plan Approval requires roads be built or bonded. (1/14/19; Rev. 1, D Applicant response:
`Comment noted.' (Rev. 3) Comment persists. (Rev. 5) Persists. Also, county email to B. Hauser,
7/28/2020 3:37 PM.
14, Final Site Plan Approval requires WPO Approval. Last action on WPO201500032: review comments
sent to Applicant, 6/27/16, If Applicant re -submits a WPO plan based on WPO201500032, Engineering
requests cloud revisions of any change to plans since last submittal of WPO201500032.
15, This Initial Site Plan appears to require an Initial and/or Final Plat.
16, New: Storm Sewer Profile Str. 5A-5 (sheet 12): Pipe length label is 7.10' inconsistent with plan view
scale (-40'; sheet 5); revise for consistency. Also, structure labels should match; i.e., Ex. 5A, Ex. 5. (Rev.
1) Not addressed. (Rev. 2) Review error /withdrawn.
17. New: Lois Lane parking and street typical section note: `There is a transition period from 12+20 to
12+75 where the road width goes from 20' to 24." Please confirm transition is limited to 55' section. Plan
view (sheet 5) transition appears more gradual and appears to extend to cover additional roadway stations.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
18, New: Lois Lane profile: Revise Str. E7 so that top of Sir. matches proposed grade. (Rev. 1)
Addressed,
19, New: Revise plan title to include SUB201800220. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
New (Rev. 3) Asfollow-up to Rev. 3 revisions:
20. Please update revision dates of rev, sheets to match PE -seal date: 7/22/20 (sheet 16, for example).
(Rev. 4) Addressed.
21. Please revise Lois Lane pavement section (Note: 2. 4). Using stone and asphalt depths, Lois Lane
section, sheet 16, Eq. at VDOT Pavement Design Guide, Rev. 2018 indicates D,=13.48, while Dp =12.6.
(Rev. 4, 5) Comment persists. Since a private street (Lois Lane) extends to Timberwood Blvd., and since
Albemarle will evaluate this existing section of Lois Lane against ADT (proposed development + existing
traffic) that travels between Timberwood and Sta. 10+00, then depth required by VDOT pavement design
guide is needed (how else to evaluate core depths against what is required?). Provide asphalt /stone
pavement section from Timberwood Blvd. (Sta. 6+85) to Sta. 10+00 for comparison with core samples.
This comment requests a design section for Sta. 6+85 - 10+00 based on ADT =693. Provide sufficient
stone, base/ surface asphalt depths (Dp > Dr) per VDOT pavement design guideline referenced above.
(Rev. 3) sheet 16 image:
Engineering Review Continents
Page 4 of 5
724' Travelway
II�� 5 � 2.5
Sidewal 0. $'
SY 9.5A, '
COMPACTED REFER TO PLAN FOR
95% COMPACTED
6" VDOT 21A DE PARKWG/'NGVELWAY
5R CO
NOTE LOCATIONS AND DIYENSIO!
1. See RO AN for parking and sidewalk locations.
2. Proposed section as shown is preliminary. Contractor
to perform CBR tests to determine final pavement
TYPICAL SECI70N FOR LOIS64N5.FdHIONC AREAS S'
EED MYIT ON IRIS AND LANDON IAMB SHALL BE IS YPH
ADT TRIPS PER DAY (LOIS Lill
693 TRIPS/D PER TURN LANE
T YSIS
(Rev. 4) sheet 16 image:
s Lane STA 6+85 to 10+00 will be upgraded per VDOT pavement
design m ples within 25' from Timberwood Boulevard edge
of pavement and STA 1 00 reveal stone or asphalt pavement depth is
less than required by T pavement design manual, based on ADT.
ne base or asphalt depths be less than design
section depths then updated design shall be used to analyze if any
existing base or sub base material may be used in the final pavement
design.
Additionally the road plan bond is avaiable to make any improvements
required to meet Lios Lane typical section 6+85 to 10+00.
3. Albemarle County will compare core samples against design as a
prerequisite for private street acceptance. The existing section from
6+85 to 10+00 will meet, at a minimum, pavement design section stone
and asphalt depth. `/
�� 24' Travelway
Sidewa 0.5' 2.5" IM 25.0 2.5' I� /
2.0" SM 95 <\
CG 2 28 SLOPE CG 6
COMPACTED
6" VDOT 21A SUBGRADE REFER TO PLAN FOR
95R COMPACTED pAREING/TRAVELWAY
NOTES: LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS
1. See ROAD PLAN for parking and sidewalk locations.
4. Proposed section as shown is preliminary Contractor
to perform CBR tests to determine final pavement
section.
TYPICAL SECTION FOR LOIS LANE PARKING AREAS STA 6+85 TO 10+00
SPEED LIMIT ON IRIS AND LANDON ZNE)
SHALL ON LOIS AND BE
ADT FOR TRIPS PER DAY FOR TRIPS PER DAY (LOI+85 TO 10+00+85 TO 10+00
683 TRIPS/DAY PER TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS 4 Q
TRIPS PER DAY (LOIS LANE)
10+00 TO 14+64 TRIPS PER DAY (LANDON LANE)
244 TRIPS/DAY 183 TRIPS/DAY
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
22. Show and label street sign (Lois Lane) and stop sign at Int. with Timberwood Blvd. (Rev. 4) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: Label street sign. (Rev. 5) Addressed.
23. Road sign standards were revised in January 2020. One change is that the blades are larger. Revise
plans to include detail for new size road name signs ( Lois Lane /Landon Lane). This E-911, safety -based
standard is intended to help fire -rescue personnel more easily locate addresses. (Rev. 4) Comment persists
and restated: Include this Note, verbatim, on plans: `Street name sign (Lois Lane, Landon Lane) will
comply with requirements specified in Albemarle County guidance titled Road Naming andProperty
Numbering Ordinance and Manual, revised 3/18/20. (Rev. 5) Addressed. Link to document:
hU7//www.albemarle.orp/ul2load/images/Forms Center/Departments/Geographic DataServices/Forms/Road_
Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual.pdf'
24, Sheet 16 indicates speed on Lois and Landon Lane shall be 15mph. Show and label speed limit signs
on each street, on sheet 5. Include label indicating posted speed limit is 15mph (if not overlooked). (Rev.
4) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Provide label at sign indicating posted speed limit is 15mph. (Rev. 5)
Addressed.
25. Provide vertical curve data and provide smooth transitions: it appears vertical curves are required on
Lois Lane to transition from -2.90 to -2.50 to 1.05%. Also, show K values on Lois Lane profile, similar to
Landon Lane. (Rev. 4) Addressed.
26, Revise Note 2., sheet 16 (or new Note) to read: `Should existing stone base or asphalt depths be less
than design section depths, road plan bond is available to make any improvements required to meet Lois
Lane typical section, Sta. 6+85 thru 10+00.' (Rev. 4) Addressed.
27, From December 5 2019 227 PM email)
• Please add this Note to plans (if clear /acceptable): Lois Lane from stationing beginning at Timberwood
Boulevard thru Sta. 10+00 will be upgraded per VDOT pavement design manual if core samples within 25'
of Timberwood Boulevard (edge of pavement) and Lois Lane Sta. 10+00 reveal stone or asphalt pavement
depth is less than required by VDOT pavement design manual, based on design ADT. Please calculate
combined commercial plus residential ADT (item 3., below). (Rev. 4) Addressed.
• New: Sheet 5 — Within 25' Timberwood EP, and at Lois Lane, Sta. 10+00f, include symbols -labels that
require core samples. (Rev. 4) Addressed.
• Sheet 5, Sta. 10+00: At Sta. 10+00f, place label /symbol requiring core sample of Ex. pavement structure
(Rev. 4) Addressed.
• Sheet 5, within 25' Timberwood Blvd. EP, place similar, requiring core sample of existing) (Rev. 4)
Addressed.
' Note /comment 21: ASB_Pavement _Eval.xls sent via email (7/21/2020 11:24 AM) appears to rely on design traffic
volume =244; please clarify this value. VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads, rev.
2018, relies on Design ADT, which is listed in .xls and plans =693 (Design ADT /design year). Reviewer is unclear
why a lower value is used in design, or even what this 244 value means since < 50% Design ADT at design year.
28_ Neiv (Rev. 4): Remove sheets 12 and 13 (Lighting) from ROAD plan —they may be included with the site plan.
(Rev. 5) Withdrawn, per telecon.
Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
SUB201800220 Timberwood Square RP_081020rev5_preview.doc