Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201900156 Approval - County 2021-10-01� AI ?"h �IRGRTF COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 Road Plan review Project: Phase 2 Rivanna Village —Road Plans Associated with SDP2018-31, Block F,G,H,I,&J Plan preparer: Alan Franklin PE, LLC /427 Cranberry Lane, Crozet, VA 22932 [alangalanfranklinpe.com ] Owner or rep.: Rivanna Investment Holdings LLC, 150 West Main St. Suite 1100 Norfolk, VA 23510 [ tcuIpUper@robinsondevelopment.com ] Plan received date: 7 Oct2019 (Rev. 1) 12 Mar 2020 (Rev. 2) 6 May 2020 (Rev. 3) 30 Oct 2020 (Rev. 4 /Final) 1 Oct 2021 Date of comments: 30 Nov 2019 (Rev. 1) 18 Apr 2020 (Rev. 2) 16 Jun 2020 (Rev. 3) 23 Dec 2020 24 Sep 2021, update subsequent to VDOT 9/15/21 review (`No objection') County email: September 24, 2021 1:42 PM (Final) 10/l/21 —Approved (sent 10/8/21) Reviewer: 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 Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 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, Z) Comment persists. 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 IS) 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. Asfollow- u : 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. (10/1/21) Withdrawn. 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. (10/1/21) NA. Per reviewer -Applicant telecon, 10/l/21, 8:53 AM telecon (Franklin -Anderson), requirement does not apply. Engineering understands that VDOT is willing to accept and maintain retaining walls within public RW. 10/8/21) Addressed. Also, please see item 3.h. below. 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. (10/1/21) Assume addressed with VDOT approval of drainage structure handrails within VDOT ROW. Also, per 10/l/21 telecon (county -Applicant), Circeo final retaining wall design likely includes HR-1 detail. Walls — general e. Revise right of way at culverts /arch span bridge structures. Revise final site Plan, as needed. (10/1/21) Not a Road Plan review comment, but courtesy reminder that ESP item may persist. f. Provide 10' min, wide permanent access easement for maintenance of bridge or culvert structures. See 4/17/20 VDOT email, above. (10/l/21) Addressed with VDOT review /approval of drainage structure design. As follow- Applicant to send VDOT /design engineer correspondence /email affirming approval of drainage structures within VDOT ROW. Final revised ROAD plan date is more recent than 27-Oct-2020. (10/8/21) Addressed. See item 31. immediately below. 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 (10/1/21) Addressed. Retaining wall design accepted by VDOT. Important ollaw-u : Please see item 7 below. (10/8/21 Addressed. Ref. A. Franklin email, October 01, 2021 4:23 PM, with links to the road plan set, executed agreement with neighbor, retaining wall plans approved by VDOT, retaining wall quantity estimate for Engineering use, Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 final Geotech study, box culvert shop drawings as reviewed by VDOT but approved by A. Franklin, arch bridge drawings for Lazy Branch Lane, arch bridge drawing for Terrapin Trace. In addition, ref. A. Franklin email, October 8, 2021 10:04 AM, which includes email chain, including county engineer email, 10/20/2020 8:17 AM, concerning maintenance agreement for walls (not needed, between Albemarle and VDOT). In addition, ref. A. Franklin email, October 8, 2021 10:29 AM, concerning VDOT guidance on box culvert drawing seal for the concrete pre -caster. Applicant (Alan Franklin) comprehensive response of 10/1/21 and 10/8/21 address remaining road plan review comments. (Rev. 3), item 3, above, Persists. As follow-up: Continue to coordinate /revise retaining wall design as needed to secure VDOT approval. It is Albemarle County understanding that if retaining walls meet VDOT standards, VDOT will accept road plan design elements related to retaining walls, conditionally with the understanding that developer /HOA will maintain portions of walls within VDOT right-of- way not directly associated with drainage structures, via the VDOT land use permit (LUP) program. (10/1/21) Addressed. Retaining wall design accepted by VDOT. Important ollow-u ): Please see item 7 below. 10/8/21 Addressed. Ref. A. Franklin email, October 01, 2021 4:23 PM. 4. Roads must be built or bonded prior to final site plan approval, and prior to final subdivision (plat) approval. (Rev. 1, D Comment persists. Applicant acknowledges. (Rev. 3; 10/1/211 Item persists. As follow-up: Preliminary Phase 2, Phase 2A ROAD plan bond Amt. estimate: $1,020,050, this is preliminary, and covers areas included with Phase 2A, depicted on sheet 4, Phase 2 Master Plan, plan d. 2/20/20. This preliminary estimate covers portions of Lazy Branch Lane, Village Park Ave (coat.), and Steamer Drive (cont. from Phase 1). Applicant should not act on this figure, and should not secure or submit a bond in this amount since the Road plan is not approved. This preliminary Rivanna Village Phase 2 ROAD Plan, Phase 2A estimate is subject to change, depending on revisions /final plans. 5. 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.ore/business/resources/LocDes/RDM/chap2d.I)df ] DEPICTING HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT ON PLANS P.I.'s, P.C.'s, P.T.'s, etc., curve data, bearings, detta's, direction of angle and be stations are to be shown where applicable as outlined in Section 2C-5 (Curve Data). 6. 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.) 7. 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, 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. 2,1) Persists. As follow-u : Please confirm that retaining wall design meeting a VDOT retaining wall std./specification is being coordinated with /through VDOT Charlottesville Residency, or VDOT Culpeper District, Structure and Bridge Division. Also, review item. 3.h., above. (10/1/21) Addressed. As ollow-up: Although Road Plan, drainage structure, and retaining wall designs are approved by VDOT, Engineering requests link to Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 final Circeo retaining wall design approved by VDOT, Culpeper District, for the Road Plan file. (Ref. 10/l/1 8:53 AM county -Applicant telecon) 10/8/21 Addressed, Applicant sent email, October 01, 2021 4:23 PM, overlooked by reviewer. 8. 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 sells, 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 s,,=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 comer 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 comer 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 Q10 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-L (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 2S 15 L (inlet throat length). This is a carryover inlet for inlet 2S 15, yet L/Lt =0.43. Increase 2S 15 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 SD2S15 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 2 Lb., above. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —x3069 Thank you SUB201900156_Rivanna Village Phase 2_block F-G-H-I-J_Road Plan 122320rev-3_final_100121approve_100821