Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000098 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2020-09-03� AI �h �lRGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Project title: Project file number: Plan preparer: Owner or rep.: Plan received date: (Rev. 1) Date of comments: (Rev. 1) Reviewer: SUB2020-00098 Subdivision Plan Review Galaxie Farm ROAD Plan Shimp Engineering, Justin M. Shimp [ iustin e shimp-engineering.com ] Jasper L or Mallie P Haynes, P.O. Box 422, Charlottesville, VA 22902 21 May 2019 3 Aug 2020 16 Jul 2020 3 Sep 2020 John Anderson Note: Comments overlap /repeat preliminary plat Engineering review comments (SUB201900198, 2/l/20). To the extent design was revised in response to preliminary plat (road -related) comments, please disregard comments that are repetitive, or not applicable. C1 C2 1. Ensure land use schedule impervious area is consistent with WPO plan for this development. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response (7/31/20 letter): `Area reviewed for consistency.' 2 nNetp. meage stili ..:. mnn plan r . deyelo..men t earl P i WPO received WP0202000 � o,�,,.��r�„osom,�eonoo. 3. C2 does not clearly indicate two parcels. There are two parcels. Please show current parcel boundaries. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 4. Label Cow Branch. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 5. Label steep slopes (preserved /managed). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As ollow-ug: Provide Exhibit for portions of slopes currently shown on steep slopes overlay district that design wishes to consider < 25% (for example, Lot 65). A plan label does not effect removal of steep slopes from the overlay district. Provide field survey elevations, steepest grade, date of survey, survey firm, area (sf) and limits of steep slopes proposed to be removed from the overlay district. 6. Note: If roof runoff is proposed to be collected and conveyed via leader lines to drop inlets or will intersect proposed 15" DIA storm lines, show leader lines. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Only lots 46-48 require roof drain routing, leaders have been shown. Drains (intentionally) outlet to front yards.' 7. Please consider recent Building Inspections Div. guidance which may influence design of retaining walls or affect plan approval. Albemarle County Building Official advises that: "Retaining walls shall either be independent and terminate at the property [read, lot] line or an easement and maintenance agreement shall be executed between property owners involved." We mention this now so that it does not cause issues, or delay or impede subsequent plan (or building application) reviews /approvals. (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: '...we have notified the developer of this condition. Developer is preparing retaining wall deed and maintenance agreements to be submitted with the subdivision plat. For now, wall Maintenance easement, with access from ROW, added to plans. We will finalize deed/agreements by the time the subdivision plat is filed.' As follow-up: Please see item I I, Albemarle is not party to wall Maintenance Agreements, but needs to confirm Agreement is recorded (with covenants and restrictions, for example). C4: Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 12 8. Label lots. Also applies to C7 C8C8. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 9. Please examine remnant existing and proposed contours on Lots 7-11. Provide storm runoff capture /conveyance such that surface runoff does not cross more than 3 lots without capture /conveyance. Ref. Drainage Plan Checklist for plan reviewers, p. 1, Drainage section, last item [ yard inlets appear to be required ] (Rev. 1) Addressed. Annlicant: `The grading on these lots was slightly revised to ensure sheetflow does not cross more than 3 lots.' 10. Lots 53-56 runoff is shown sheeting across Road E. Provide drainage to intercept sheet runoff and convey via street -side pipes or yard inlet pipe system. Design must prevent offsite runoff from traversing Road E street surface. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `This design is intentional as part of a low impact design strategy. As part of the rezoning application, we were granted a curb & gutter waiver for Road E. So we were allowed to have the small amount of water from Lots 53-56 sheetflow, across Road E. And although the CG-7 on the downhill side is not required, we judged that this design would provide better public benefit for runoff control than if no curb & gutter were provided. So as it has been designed, this street section goes above what is required by the zoning requirements for this road.' 11. Provide temporary (off -site) construction /permanent grading easement/s as needed to construct proposed retaining wall across parcel lines, Lots 1-7. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant: `Permanent wall maintenance easement added. While we anticipate minor construction disturbance in the Galaxie Farm ROW, this activity is permitted as long as full access is provided for the residents who use the road. Grading will not disturb past the existing fence, thus fall access is ensured, thus no other easements are necessary for construction.' As follow-up: While Albemarle is not party to wall maintenance agreements, per building inspections division directive, CDD must confirm an agreement exists, and is recorded. Please provide deed book -page ref. to retaining wall maintenance agreement prior to final plat approval. 12. (C7 C 12): Calculate depth in roll-top gutter, Road E. Ensure runoff does not enter driveways (esp. Lots 57,58). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Annlicant: `Acknowledged, this calculation was added to the LD-204 page. The curb is adequate per VDOT standards —with a flow depth of 0.21' (2.5") for a storm with I-6.0.' 13. C3 C4C4: 8' wide ditch crossing lots 23 thru 38 is an infeasible design. Revise surface ditch to subsurface drainage (inlet /pipes). Owner of multiple lots may flatten obscure ditch and disrupt drainage since each lot has such limited lawn area. A surface ditch design crossing 15 lots will not in this instance be approved. (Recall homeowner resistance to swale construction across lawn areas at Hillbrook Subdivision.) (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Ditch removed from Lots 23-38 and replaced with yard drains & storm pipe. Yard drains placed to ensure flow does not cross more than 3 lots. Drains daylight in Open Space B past the (revised) emergency connection.' 14. Similarly, provide subsurface storm runoff collection /conveyance for Lots 15-22. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `For these lots, runoff does not cross more than 3 lots, but sheetflows into a natural channel just behind the rear property line. The runoff is captured at structure EX where this channel re-enters the property.' 15. Ensure storm runoff from impervious areas, Lots 15-38 is conveyed and treated or detained, as needed, to comply with state or local code, including MS-19. It appears a necessity that given close proximity to property line to SW that impervious rooftop storm runoff must be collected, since splash block -only discharge cannot transition to sheet flow in limited space available (Lots 15-22, especially). (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant: `Acknowledged, this runoff is captured in EX (serves lots 15-22) and in yard drains (serves lots 23-58). Since 15-22 sheetflows into a natural channel, with no downstream impact (since this channel is re -captured at Lot 22), MS-19 requirements are met.' As follow-up: Per county engineer guidance, provide spot elevations and proposed grade lines to ensure capture at Str. E7C. 16. C4: 17. Provide guardrail, Road F, at stream crossing. Alternatively, provide 12:1, 4'-wide graded shoulders before transitioning to steeper embankment grades. Infrequent use reduces but does not eliminate risk posed by unrecoverable slope with =7.25' vertical drop to streambed. (Rev. 1) NA. Applicant: `Noted, however Road F has been removed and replaced with a superior connection that utilizes the existing fire access road for Avinity subdivision.' As follow-up: Please provide deeded easement across Avinity property that grants Galaxie Farm right of access to off -site fire access. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 12 18. C4 (C6, C8): Ensure lots are located entirely outside the (100') stream buffer. Ref. ZMA Sheet 7, Note F. Portions of Lots 57, 58, 59 appear to be within stream buffer. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Lots 57-59 revised to be outside the stream buffer. 19. C5: Provide additional preliminary design detail for transition from Road A2 to Ex. Galaxie Farm Lane which provides access to multiple parcels beyond proposed development. Note reading Connect Galaxie Farm Lane to new road is insufficient for an existing road that must remain in continuous use. Compare spot grade at transition to Galaxie Farm Lane at end of Road A2 to existing Elev. of Galaxie Farm Lane. Provide preliminary travel way design and drainage to ensure smooth transition. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant: `Acknowledged, additional detail added to plan & profiles. While exact extent of grading will be based on field conditions (survey w. 2' contours allows only an estimate of how far mill & overlay extends), more direction has now been provided.' As follow-up please see item 52 below. 20. C5, C6 (Subdivision Layout), and CT C8 (Grading and Utility Plans) mix incomplete views of easements, and utilities. For example, C5, C6 show ACSA easements, but not all. For example, C5 does not provide ACSA waterline easement south of Road Al in the direction of Rt. 20, to include new FH near Int. Rt. 20. New ACSA water easement is shown along Road E, with utility schematic (C7), allowing easy check of easement. Provide and label all utility easements on C7C8. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Easements now properly shown.' C5/C6 21. Show /label CG-12 ramps wherever sidewalks intersect roads [@ intersections of Roads: B 1-A2, 132-A2, B1-Al, Al-D, 132-C, C-E, at entrance to parking area SE of Open Space C ]. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, see items 53, 54, 55. 22. Provide and label traffic control signs: stop, no parking, speed limit. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 23. Provide and label street name signs. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 24. Show intersection sight distance lines for internal street intersections. (Rev. 1) Addressed, 25. C5 a. Lot 60: Provide Auto -turn figure to show vehicle reversing from driveway clears N-bound lane completely before advancing in a forward direction. If Road E is insufficient length, a typical passenger vehicle will strike curb or run off Road E before it clears N-bound (in -bound) lane. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `House & driveway orientation have been reversed to provide adequate reversal space.' b. Provide fixed barriers both as pedestrian protection and to prevent vehicles from running off the end of Road E. A curb -less design at N end of Road E cannot be approved. Provide guardrail pedestrian protection between end Road E, and Road Al sidewalk. Provide curb at end Road E. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Guardrail provided. Applicant: `GR-2 guardrail provided. Curb was not provided as this is an uphill section, and guardrail serves as a more sturdy and effective barrier.' Engineering appreciates this response. c. Lots 57, 58: Drive entrances propose acute angles (>90-deg). Provide Auto -turn figures to show a typical passenger vehicle may enter driveways without running off paved drives and onto lawns. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Lot 58 driveway is no longer acute, lot 57 driveway revised for better maneuverability. These revisions should provide a solution to Engineering's concerns, however auto -turn diagrams are not required for private driveways on private streets, and are not provided.' Thank you. Auto -turn is a graphic tool, but will try to request verification of driveway entrance design adequacy using alternate methods in the future, while the objective is unchanged. d. All subdivision Lots: Related to 25.c., revise all driveway widths to 12' (Absolute Minimum; see VDOT CG-9D). Also, item 40 below. Please apply CG-9D Min. drive width to this/future design. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `All driveways now have min. 12' width.' e. Lots 48-50: Driveway entrances problematic relative to angle with cul-de-sac, or location in radius curve sections of curb. Provide perpendicular driveway /street intersections. Relocate driveways out of curved sections of cul-de-sac curb. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Albemarle has approved similar driveway entrance designs for developments, Rivanna Village 1, for example (SUB201500119). Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 12 f. Show sight distance lines (left/right, NE/SW) at Int. Road Al and Route 20. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Asfollow-u- : C20 indicates `topo profile from GIS, data to be verified.' Please verify design provides adequate sight distance at RL 20 development entrance based on field survey data. g. Label highlight line -type, ifnage bele . [ Image removed with Rev. 1 comments ] If an easement or setback, this line intersects structures (likely impermissible). (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `That unlabeled line is the 18' garage setback, label has now been added. House can encroach garage setback, but the garage must provide min. 18' of driveway from back of sidewalk.' 26. C5( C13. 8 sheets): Show driveway entrance radii graphically. Additional comments possible. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 27. Cam -over review comment. SUB201900198: `(2/20/20, Revised) Revise oul de saus, ROad.. P I a a P2 4 5' Min. Ref 1.1POT Road Posign Manual, Appendix B(l) 3, Roadmey Geometw pesign GFitma, B. Inoual Roadways, 1. i "A single unit (SU) tPack design vehiele, as def4ned by AAS140T, should be used faF AASHT-0 Ceemetw Design of l4ighways and StFeets 2011, shavqa in Figwe 1. NoWi Fi& 1 shows path o 40nt ,., eFha g of a single unit (SU) tFuek design ehiele rein. ..,at.... —no.°'. New, Febl2, 2020 1:54 PM email) Using a SU design vehicle then, there is option of. 45' R, which meets VDOT RDM B(1)-24 with proposed Road D.1 / D.2 FC/FC street width =24% or 30' R cul-de-sac with FC/FC street width =30'. Either is acceptable. To provide neither would not meet AASHTO /VDOT RDM, or ACDSM requirements. To provide one or the other also alleviates concern relating to parcel deliveries (ever more common) and waste management access needs outlined in email sent 2/7/2020 8:48 AM (below). Albemarle defers to VDOT /ACF&R should either impose requirement for radius > 30'. Road plan design should accommodate whatever these review, transportation, and emergency response agencies require.' (Rev. 1) Not addressed. Applicant response: `Noted, we have coordinated with, and received blessing form VDOT & Fire Rescue on cul-de-sac radii.' 30' R cul-de-sac corresponds with FC/FC street width >_30'. Revise street width to 30', FC/FC. Also, email sent 2/12/2020 1:54 PM (re. SUB201900198), 8/31/2020 8:01 PM. RDM- Appendix B(1) Fig. 1 A single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle, as defined by AASHTO, should be used for the design of all local subdivision streets. Dimensions for this vehicle are depicted in Figure 2-2 of the AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011, shown as Figure 1. FIGURE 1 — "FIGURE 2-2" SCANNED FROM "A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS," AASHTO, 2011 28. Pro%iuc uuauo, Nmu much ful uuu. (Rev. 1) Addressed_ a. Knox box (Road F), b. Bollards (Road F). 29. Label distance along Route 20 to nearest street intersection (both directions). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 12 30. Provide curb extensions for parallel parking, Road B2, see design standard at VDOT RDM, B(1), pg. 59 (Rev. 1) Addressed. (pg. 61 of .PDF /Link: htti)s://www.virginiadot.orgibusiness/resources/LocDes/RDMJAuuendB l .ndf ). 31 F. Curb Extensions — Curb extensions at intersections are frequently used in Traditional Neighborhood Developments. Curb Extensions are also used to protect parking areas and to reduce pedestrian crossing times. WR �- rOR MN. 35R MW� Exatr+e Rapue ,0' �WMWm Curb Extension (Bulb -Out) C7/C8 Grading and Utility Plan: [SUB201900198 review. If addressed w/ ROAD plan, please disregard]: a. (2/20/20, Revised) Ensmeer nnge:...=nat Feeam end pFeli..,:..wy v:...,i plat a al Oft - 60„ unnn w / headwall at Ca n_.._, h Please provide additional design information for this crossing; design for the 25-yr event. For perspective, please see photo d. 7/27/18 (by Albemarle), below, which shows drainage structure beneath Rt. 20 upstream of proposed Road A.1 crossing. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant: `Hydraulic design provided, which shows this design accommodates the 25-year event.' As ollow-up: Pg. 12, 13 of Road Plan SWM Calculation packet (7/31/20) clearly indicate Q25-n design, but LD-229 table values (p. 15 /Calc. report) are confusing since pipe capacities (culverts A, B, Qro) appear < total 10-yr design values. Engineering assumes Q25 design would similarly exceed culvert A, B pipe capacity since Q10 appears to exceed pipe capacity. Engineering may be misinterpreting LD-229 table, would be grateful for clarification. k.,�,.,..,. ,1114pee 0,O. Hp�Q, 1:� T', 33, 35, 37ndd 3-9, as R. ACS-A Aratel:line Easement may impede ability to develop Inats 58 6 1, as shEWAI.- d. Label -reads. New: Label lots. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Engineering Review Comments Page 6 of 12 e. Note existing natural drainage that clips end of Road A2. Provide conveyance of storm runoff that transits this natural drainage feature in the post -developed condition. (Rev.1) Addressed. Applicant: `This is provided by a combination of F2 & F3 inlets.' f. Avoid nuisance ponding on any private or public road; `-- e affiple ,_ _iFetll--'bulb 3e4,a_ Read B (sout4 end Road 9). provide inlet uaptuFe anj adequate conveyanee A this locatio+: (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `This is provided by current inlet design (ref. LD-204, inlet drainage map). g.i nn nn o,.. :..,.,n n_,..:Ele inlets and piped a_,.:. age of funeW, Read F. Withdr.._. _ ( 2 i<nn Applicant: `NA, but note that Road E runoff routed to storm system via CG-7 curb and gutter. dwellings along Road F.. SteFm Funegeolleetion and uom,eyanee applies to Road 14. Also, i. Provide /show /label public drainage easement at NE corner Int. Road D and Road Al (Open Space). Note: A portion of public drainage, Str. D3 — DI, lies outside public ROW. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Also, review item 51, below. As follow-up: WPO proposes and WPO plan review discusses natural stream restoration, which may require separate access easement to Cow Branch for a period of time, until restored stream reach is stable (3-5 years). k. Provide storm drain inlets at low point /sag, Road Al. (Rev. 1) Addressed. As follow-up: Depict C1 outfall at headwall in Road Al profile between 487-60" dbl. pipes. Also, please depict headwall spanning 487-60" dbl. storm culverts in this profile view. Images, below. (:L a 0 0 475 ° + 00 Oad a o ao C) 470 z 0 465 465 8.04 LF 15" / HP -STORM 0 1.95 LF 15" 00 ®660.22%o pn•-h -STORM 460 N N _4% t0 450 10+00 10+54050 s STORM PROFILE: Cl—C3 C19 Scale: Vert. 1"=10' Horiz. 1"=30' Engineering Review Comments Page 7 of 12 ROAD Al 38' PUBLIC ROW 28' PAVEMENT 25 MPH DESIGN -- SPEED AADT=592 1'-3O' HOMZONT& 1'-10' wltl 1L PVI qTA 1171W(70_ PVI ELE . 466.20 258. VC 48 DOUBLE 188. SVC SD 0� DOUBLE HP —STORM - 26.2 — Vol 7—STORM CULVERT A. B. MIN. 2' COVER SAG STA.11+82 J6 MIN. 2 COVER SAG ELEV.469.82 90' BEN TO FH 11+80 12+00 12+5f I. Remove entirety of proposed SWM facilities from stream -ward 50' of Cow Branch stream buffer. (Rev. 1) Applicant: `No SWM facilities lie within 50' of Cow Branch.' n. (2/20/20. Revised Provide design for Cow Branch crossing, Road F. Size pipe /culvert to pass the 25-yr event without overtopping Road F (Emergency Access). New: County email to Shawn Maddox, ACF&R, 2/20/2020 11:07 AM requests guidance on ACF&R access needs relative to existing pipe at stream crossing along dedicated fire -rescue access (2' point of subdivision access). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Road F removed. Second crossing of Cow Branch no longer proposed.' o. New: Relocate private waterline laterals outside public ROW, all lots. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn. Applicant: `This is not a requirement and is the purview of ACSA.' Engineering defers to ACSA /VDOT. p. New: Coordinate with USACE. Provide copy of Nationwide or Virginia General Permit to perform construction in live stream (Cow Branch). (Rev. 1) Persists. Applicant: `Acknowledged, nationwide 18 permit exhibit submitted. Will send confirmation when received.' C9 32. Provide Class B — Type I primitive trail section (Ref. ZMA, sheet 9. image below). (Rev. 1) Addressed. 33. Road Al profile: Label drainage structure dimensions /material type, INV elev., top of structure elevation (at sag curve). Ensure adequate cover, given 10-V2" pavement section, subgrade CBR requirement, and apparent —1' distance between top of culvert and road finished grade. Cover appears inadequate. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 34. Road Al profile: Show double -line culverts as two lines, not one line. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 35. Road Al profile: Label drainage structures. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 36. Show Road A2-Ex. Galaxie Farm Road transition. Provide grading /design that ensure smooth transition. (Rev. 1) Addressed. CIO 37. Road B 1 /Road B2 include sag curves that do not meet Min. K value =15, provide Min. K-value. Also, ref. VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1), Table 1 reference to 2011 AASHTO Green Book. See also, 2011 AASHTO Green Book, Table 5-3. Albemarle may at times rely on 2001 AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very Low Volume Local Roads (ADT<400 ADT), which lists Min, rate of vertical curvature for Crest Vertical Curves (Exhibit 12), and refences Ch. 5 of Green Book for sag curve Min, rate of vertical curvature. Albemarle requires Min. K-values of 5 and 15 for crest and sag curves, respectively. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: `Road B vertical curves revised to fully comply with VDOT standards for a 25 mph road. Since this street is expected to handle future traffic which would likely put Engineering Review Comments Page 8 of 12 the daily trip count over 400, crest K of 12 and sag K of 26 have been provided. For Road D, since trip count <100, AASHTO Guidelines for Very Low Volume Local Roads were used to determine sight distance. Sheet 35 of this book states that a sight distance of 125' is appropriate for this scenario.' 38. C 12: Road D, Revise to provide Min. K-value /sag curve > 15. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 39. C13: Road F profile: Label drainage structure dimensions/material type, INV elevation, top of structure elevation (at sag curve). Ensure adequate cover. (Rev. 1) NA. Road F profile removed along with the road. 40. C15: Include VDOT CG-9D, Standard Entrance Gutter —Ref. 2016 VDOT R&B Standards, Rev. d. 07/15 (Rev. 1) Addressed. 41. C 18 (Rev. 1) Addressed. a. Add SL-1 or Y:" steel plate labels to MHs, as needed (for example, Str. E7, which requires both). b. Profile Al-A2: Provide wingwall design. c. Ensure proposed culvert INV elevation comports with USACE countersinking requirements. d. If culvert is a double line (B 1— B2, for example), label profile for clarity ( dbl. line). e. Revise profile F1-F2 caption to read FI-F4. ZMA201800012 Sheet 7-related comments relating to SUB201900198 /ref. sheet 7 Notes, image below 43. Note F: Remove lots from stream buffer. Also, item 18 -1-51 above. (Rev. 1) Addressed. 44. Note G: Also, item 7 4&, above. (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Acknowledged.' As follow-up: Please ensure Max. wall ht. does not exceed 10', it does not, as currently proposed. Please ref. code 18-4.3.3, rev. 7/15/20. https:/AibEM.municode.com/va/albemarle county/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=COALCOVI_CH18ZO S4GER 45. Note K. Also, 2 n ti 46. Also, please consider Albemarle County Engineer's comments on ZMA201800012, 9/23/19, which appear relevant to preliminary plat, and subsequent plan applications, reprinted as text, below: `Waiver Requests: (1) Double Fronted Lots: No objection. (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Acknowledged, thank you.' (2) Private Streets: - Road D: The Design Standards Manual requires private streets to meet VDOT minimum standards, however, the County has allowed by policy the use of ASHTO Geometric Design of Very Low Local Roads for private streets with an ADT under 400 trips per day. If Block 1 is modified to serve only multi- family (i.e. a site plan), standards may be reduced further as shown in the Design Standards Manual. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Acknowledged, Road D revised to meet standard.' - Road E: Must also meet low volume road standards. Identify if any additional waivers are required. Engineering Review Comments Page 9 of 12 (3) Private Street Design Requirements: (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Acknowledged, no additional waivers required.' - Road D: Street must meet design standards noted above, unless serving multi -family only. - Road E: Identify the purpose of the "bulb" on this road. Parking must meet County design requirements. Has VDOT approved spacing requirements for public road intersections? (Rev. 1) Applicant: `Acknowledged, Road D revised to meet standard. Road E bulb/cul-de-sac is to provide ease of turnaround for residents. Parking meets county requirements (no parking on the Road E bulb/cul-de-sac). VDOT had no objection for spacing requirements.' (4) Modification of Setbacks: No objection. The road exhibits show a comer lot in Block 1, a few lots in Block 2, and the sidewalk in Block 2 within the stream buffer. These improvements are not exempt and cannot be located in a stream buffer. This comment was previously made during the ZMA review, which did not (does not) show these impacts.' (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant: `Acknowledged, these have been revised —all are moved out of stream buffer.' ZMA sheets (for reference) Sheet 7, Notes v NOTES: A) For from loaded garages, the porch or building face shall be a minimum of 3 feet closer to the street as measured from the face of the garage door. B) For those units that (1) do not front Roads A.2" or "B , and (2) are located in Block 2, utilizing Private Road "E", shall have a minimum front setback of 3 feet from the right-of-way of Private Road "E" All other units shall have a minimum front setback of 5 feet, per Section 4.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. C) AB Blacks except 7 and 8 may be used for residential uses as noted by the unit types listed above. D) AB rear yards (except those adjoining Road "E") shall have a minimum setback of 20 feel E) Structures along Road "E" shall have a minimum rear setback of 5 feet. F) No structures or lots shall be permitted in the stream buffer or on preserved slopes. No preserved slopes within the development shall be disturbed. G) As applicable, retaining walls within the development shall meet the design standards required for the disturbance of managed slopes in Section 30.7.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. H) Total allowable residential units shall be 65. 1) Road "C" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-13 to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County. )) Road "13.1" is shown as a possible future connection to Tax Map Parcel 91-10 to be extended and dedicated upon demand of the County. K) 25%of the required stormwater quality treatment shall be provided onsite. Sheet 8 + AB sections to comply with VDOT and/or Albemarle County standards, as applicable O4� A4 8 E Sheet 9 Engineering Review Comments Page 10 of 12 CLASS B - TYPE 1 PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL -Private EASEMENT 1— s•,l CLASS B - TYPE 7 PRIMITIVE NATURE TRAIL 47. Calculation packet: a. Confirm that 10-yr event is design basis of LD-229, p. 13 of packet. (Rev. 1) Addressed. b. If so, please revise design of culverts to ensure pipe capacity> calculated peak discharge during design event, for example, please examine and revise as needed design of. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: `Culvert designs revised to provide full capacity for thee pipes.' As follow-up please clarify /explain items b.i, ii, vi, vii, Qlo-,, values that appear to exceed capacity (Qian vs. pipe capacity /p. 15, Cale. report).: i. G2 to GI 198.08 v. 146.4 (all values, cfs) ii. F2 to Fl (unless designed as detention pipe), 42.96 v. 34.7 iii. E5 to E4 iv. E4 to E3 v. E3 to E2 vi. B2 to B 1 269.63 v. 18.7 vii. A2 to Al 140.70 v. 19.0 New / Rev. 1 48. It appears sidewalk is proposed to cross lots 57 thru 60—unless walks are exclusive to these lots, or even each lot, this is unconventional. Engineering defers to Planning on what Agreements may be required to ensure public right to use sidewalks located on privately -owned lots. 49. C9: Plan view text is upside down (understand why, to correspond with profile). Recommend rotate text 180-deg. so more easily readable. Plan view information is important and should be readable. 50. Restore N arrow to road plan sheets that depict plan views. 51. C7: Label public drainage easement crossing lots 12, 13, 14 and 39, show and label public drainage easement between E6Z and E6. C5 52. Provide horizontal curve at transition, Road A2 to Ex. Galaxie Farm Lane, an existing roadway anticipated to see daily use. Use 25 mph design speed, minimum, when designing horizontal curve at transition. This is not a request for change to Road A2; rather, grading, CL alignment, and notes that revise Galaxie Farm Lane may suffice. When approaching A2 from Galaxie Farm Lane, horizontal /vertical curves must provide safe transition at 25 mph, or higher design speed. Proposed abrupt transition is depicted below, sheet C5. Engineering Review Comments Page 11 of 12 •�� \ sw— i _-\�� cur.µx LANE -- LAXIE FARM 53. Provide CG-12 ramps and pedestrian crossing of Road Al at intersection with Road D on west side of Road D. Ramps and crossing are requisite for safe interconnected pedestrian network, which includes trails and walks. 54. Provide CG-12 ramps and pedestrian crossing of Road A2 at intersection with Road B 1-B2, either side of intersection. Ref blue lines, below. 'E L .ol a vT s I sasY ,. ( av I xJo �.Me .oi+v zw ITI l� 1� I ].6 J�OWW LOT <5 I cY.B m'vmJnouc Y r E-i!s 1,112 rre..aea iP 0 mT roil»ouE jo °.a.. 55. Recommend CG-12 at primitive trail Road Al intersection. Pedestrian facilities typically may not intersect public roads without HC-accessible ramps, which, in this instance, appear more necessary since trail -Al intersection is at radius return at development entrance at Rt. 20, and drivers may be distracted by braking, accelerating, steering, oncoming traffic, etc., whether entering or exiting Galaxie Farm. 56. Also recommend, if VDOT permits, sign on Rt. 20 (blue circle) depicting graphically pedestrian with right arrow to indicate pedestrians may be encountered immediately upon entering the development on Road Al. Engineering believes it is critical to plan for conflicts that multiply at intersections, with transitional speed limits, with road -trail networks that serve different purposes. A recreational trail for walking, running, and space where children or pets may become separated from guardians are proposed within feet of Rt. 20, a high-speed primary route. Quite dissimilar, trail and Rt. 20 nearly immediately intersect one another. Engineering Review Comments Page 12 of 12 NONWDVEN FILMR F ' ��� �I I I III III � �\ /bd I PI CDNC. {f \ I LF HEAD / - \ (�EW GR-2 �� III III III III I \\\\\III r,4ARDRAIL 1 -_'I� t F ILY Ir III III III III/ I 1\\ 4APER0 TTT 6 A H PA M i F \ wncn I I III d' III j CnoN i sr. ow (rnI o z N ,boo r p�QAf RIP-�� Ii DNp 1/4 1 oRul� yd� uurc1 f o 0 I ii� , I NEW 35' PUBLIC Y` DRAINAGE ESMT _ ��`r♦ _� a 57. Provide and label CG-6 wipe down at Rt. 20. 58. Provide wipe down detail, unless overlooked. Please feel free to call if any questions. Tbank you. J. Anderson 434.296-5832-x3069 SUB202000098 Galasie Fann ROAD plan 090320rev I