HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202300029 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2023-04-07�q off nig 401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
County of Albemarle Telephone:434-296-5832
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
��BGIN�Q'
Road Review
Project title:
Road Plan - 664 West Rio
Project:
SUB202300029
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St., Charlottesville, VA 22902
Stephanie Paul — stephaniegshimp-en ing eering com
Owner /Applicant:
Cameron Property Cville LLC — 6805 Morrison Blvd, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28211 [ bwalden@madisoncapgroup.com ]
Plan received date:
23 Feb 2023
Date of comments:
7 Apr 2023
Reviewer:
John Anderson, PE/CFM
Engineering has review Road Plan dated 2/22/23 and offers the following comments:
1. C L Revise plan title to reference SUB21
2. C4 (may affect site plan review as well)
a. Label sidewalk width SW of commercial building, near W comer of building.
b. Label sidewalk width at N comer of commercial building, which appears <6' width.
c. Label sidewalk width NW of local street A, right -out exit at Rio West.
d. Label typ. L x W of 9 parking spaces SW of self -storage building.
e. Label sidewalk width fronting these 9 spaces; check against parking space /sidewalk
schematic min. design requirements, p. 17, ACDSM. Albemarle Co. Design Std. Manual.
f. Given rapid deceleration of vehicles entering site from W. Rio and potential conflict with
pedestrians at this location, provide pavement markings at ped. crossing. Pls. ref. VDOT
standard for pavement markings. At a typ. CG-12/pedestrian crossings, with side street
intersecting a 35mph connector, the crossing would be striped to alert motorists on the
connector turning onto the side street to presence of a crosswalk. Also, at a typical int.,
pedestrians could check connector traffic (vehicles moving NW on Rio) before committing to
enter the crosswalk. That is not possible with ramp placed - 40' from Rio EP. Cars or trucks
entering the site will not be visible to pedestrians, may suddenly encounter pedestrians, and
for inbound vehicles, drivers may be more instantly alert to potential pedestrians by crosswalk
pavement marking. Every effort must be made to protect pedestrians entering the crosswalk
under current somewhat `blind' ped-crossing design, if viewed at right -in from Rio West.
g. If eastern site access is only site entrance for SU-40 style vehicles (similar to Ford -650
chassis typ. of 26' U-Haul, as an example), which may be anticipated as needing access to the
92,175 sf self -storage facility at rear of site, then show and label `No truck' and/or `No self -
storage traffic' signs at the western ROAD A entrance, which appears by design to be
reserved exclusively for self -storage exit, and residential unit in -out traffic.
h. Depict existing CG-6 on Rio West. Comment also applies to C 14. See blue box area, below.
3. C5
4. C7
5. C8
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
CG-9
ENTRANCE
EXISTING
30" STOP
9GN GISW
I\ SUR,
R, 0v? N -
Q
OF
Y
2
Hm
P, o Existing CG-6 is not shown.
a. Provide spot elevations (TC) at curb bump -out, contour 10, at shared parcel entrance to
ensure crowned runoff does not pool in comer, just above elev. label 10.
b. Provide demolition in area/s to be traversed by 6-wheel commercial vehicles, typ. gross
vehicle wt. plus Max. load wt. of SU-40 vehicle that may use eastern entrance (blue outline,
image) to access 92,175 sf self -storage building. Ensure eastern pavement section also:
supports 85,000 lb. fire apparatus; provides grade from Rio West to descending access /ramp
that provides fire apparatus chassis clearance, including front bumper hook; that Auto turn
analysis diagram indicates adequate (eastern entrance) horizontal clearance for SU-40 and
ACF&R vehicles, specifically, Seminole Station 8 response vehicles.
qCAMARK
INLET
\ V
Z527.78 \
-
---L-_
`. I
a. Grading and Utility design will be reviewed with WPO202200017 Amendment # 1, anticipate
submittal soon (WPO202200017 tree removal approved 3/16/23). WPO202200017 review
comments that include roadway layout /storm conveyance, review d. 3/7/23, are also relevant.
Ensure Road Plan considers prior WPO plan review comments.
a. Engineering is unfamiliar with VDOT restriction on streetscape /landscape tree max. DIA
=4". In many subdivision designs, large canopy trees are approved by VDOT within 6' w
planting strip, behind curb, consistent with VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix B(1).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
b. Provide planting strip planting species consistent with Planning Div. SAP planting guidance,
and /or VDOT guidance for trees within VDOT RW, consistent with posted speed limit for
this section of Rio Road West.
c. Provide Road Plan, WPO plan, Site Plan Note for C8 that states: `Proposed or approved
landscaping located within the New V.W. Public SWM Facility Esmt may be damaged or
destroyed by detention system maintenance. Approved landscaping within proposed New
V.W. Public SWM Facility Esmt must be replaced if damaged or destroyed unless later plan
approval allows removal of (parking island) landscaping depicted on this sheet.' Please note:
Any expense associated with replacement of landscaping located within SWM facility
easement is at developer /site owner expense, not to be home by tenants, Albemarle County,
or any other entity. It is developer/owner responsibility as injury or destruction of plantings
within SWM easement is associated with SWM facility, and this design is at discretion of
developer/owner.
6. C11
a. Check and revise ITE trip generation tables to provide detail /definition relative to:
i. Eastern site access (AM/PM):
1. In/Out small office building traffic, destination: PhotoWorksGroup
2. In/Out self -storage truck /vehicle traffic
3. In/out self -storage staff vehicle traffic (if any; day/evening)
4. In/out 89-unit multifamily residential (it is not negligible)
ii. Western ROAD A (AM/PM):
1. Outbound self -storage truck /vehicle traffic
2. In/out self -storage staff (negligible)
3. In/out 89-unit multifamily residential (majority)
iii. Ensure all pavement (eastern, internal travel way fronting self -storage, ROAD A) is
adequate. Revise pavement and provide discrete pavement design for eastern,
ROAD A, and internal travel way fronting self -storage.
7. C13
a. Plan view of intersection sight distance repeats (internal travel way -ROAD A intersection);
please replace lower plan view section with intersection sight distance profile view.
8. C 14
a. Eastern site access is 2-way; pls. check /revise Auto turn analysis diagrams and check /revise
(as needed) eastern site access width /radii to allow 2-way traffic in curves without SU-40
vehicle crossing access centerline, encroaching on sedan that may use eastern site access as
point of access to travel SE on Rio West toward US Rt. 29.
b. In addition, please ref. ACF&R road plan review comments sent to design engineer as email
(April 7, 2023 1:25 PM), with additional Engr. commentary on Auto turn analysis diagrams.
That email is attached to email transmittal that accompanies Engineering road plan review
comments. Auto turn analysis diagram is problematic for multiple reasons.
9. C16
a. Replace 15" HDPE pipes between A8A and A8 with 15" RCP with note indicating `HDPE
may not substitute for RCP.' These pipes within public drainage easement in fill section (and
beneath retaining wall) cannot be practically replaced in the future. Proper installation of
RCP for these two pipe sections is rated essential for SWM conveyance and detention.
Engineering exercises discretion over pipe in public drainage easement, which, typically, may
not cross beneath retaining walls. These two pipes are immediately upstream of ADS UG
detention manifold, and special care must be taken with design.
b. Replace 18" HDPE pipes between A5 and El (0.00% pipe slope) with 18" RCP with plan
note indicating `HDPE may not substitute for RCP.' These pipes within public drainage
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
easement at 0% grade (and beneath retaining wall) cannot deflect without altering SWM
performance, and cannot in the future be easily or practically replaced.
c. Revise pipe crossing detail 1 and 2 to require RCP pipe at these locations, without substitute
(No HDPE).
d. Typically, Engineering prohibits public drainage easement beneath retaining walls. A8 to
A8C pipe run conveys runoff from public road (Road A); beyond public RW pipe is within
public drainage easement.
e. Consult Mfr. or best engineering practice to ensure 18" sump (x3) is not permanent pool, via
weeps /other. This 18" depth will initially hold /storm runoff, will eventually fill with debris.
In any case, sump at this location (x3) appears to require measure to prevent permanent pool.
f. A8-A8B, fill section: Provide Note concerning compaction, especially beneath structure A8A
to prevent undue settling. Also applies to A4B-D3 profile, Str. A713. Provide note requiring
adequate compaction.
g. Str. A4, B 1, C 1: Provide note requiring 9z" steel plate in floor of ea. structure.
h. Provide prominent NOTE: `See SWM facility design at VIP0202200017 Amendment #1.'
VIP0202200017 Amendment # 1 is not approved as of this date, but approval is likely to
coincide with SLIB202300029 Road plan approval.
10. C17
a. Transfer Earth Fill Notes to C 16, then remove C 17 from the ROAD Plan. Road plans do not
approve SWM facility design.
11. C18
12. C20
a. This sheet may (perhaps should) remain with the Road Plan.
b. If any element of this plan sheet is revised by WPO202200017 Amendment # 1, please revise
road plan, consistent with WPO plan. And vice -versa.
c. Should revision to plan (horizontal /vertical) affect any pipe or storm structure, ensure all
design information is consistent, and reflects roadway geometry. Comment applies to
multiple sheets.
a. Please provide typ. pavement sections for (repeats comment, elsewhere):
i. Eastern site access
ii. Internal Aisle (fronting self -storage)
iii. Road A.
b. Revise typ. pavement section for local street detail to `Typical pavement section for Road A
[or Road Name, once road is named]'
Note: Additional Agency or division Road plan review comments will be sent as received.
Thank you.
Please call if any questions — tel. 434.296-5832 -0069, or email janderson2@albemarle.org.
SUB202300029_664 W Rio ROAD_040723