Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPO200700043 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2008-07-23� OF AL ,. vIRGI1`IZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: Martha Jefferson Hospital Rough Grading Plan [WPO200700043] Plan preparer: Mike Matthews, Matthews Dev. Company LLC [fax 977 -5902] Plan preparer: Dan Knapp, Graef Anhalt, Scholemer & Assoc. [fax (414) 259 -0037] Plan preparer: Rummel, Klepper, & Kahl, LLP [fax (804) 782 -2142] Owner or rep.: MJH Foundation [459 Locust Ave Charlottesville, VA 22902] Plan received date: 24 July 2007 (Rev. 1) 24 January 2008 (Rev. 2) 29 May 2008 Date of comments: 27 Aug 2007 (Rev. 1) 21 March 2008 (Rev. 2) 23 July 2008 Reviewer: Jonathan Sharp (Rev. 1) Phil Custer (Rev. 2) Phil Custer A. Road and Drainage Plans 1. VDOT approval is required. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. VDOT approval has been received. 2. Please provide a traffic generation and distribution summary. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. 3. Please provide pavement designs. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4. Please provide proposed grading and easements on the plans. Specific information regarding requirements can be found under Grading and Easements on page 20 in the County Engineering Design Manual which can be found on the County website. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. All necessary grading easements have been received. 5. Turn and taper lane lengths and widths should be labeled. (Rev. 1) The right turn and taper lane for State Farm Blvd. to Willis Road should be labeled. The right turn and taper lane for Peter Jefferson Parkway at its intersection with the existing site on TMP 78 -31HO should also be labeled. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 6. Sidewalks and planting strips may be required (based on site plan or rezoning requirements). (Rev. 1) Sidewalk and planting strips will not be required, but a pedestrian pathway as shown on the approved rezoning plan will need to be shown on the site plan. (Rev. 2) The Planning Department will provide comments regarding pedestrian pathways on the site plan letter from the current development planner. 7. Please show street tree locations, with species and height or caliper. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please provide information on all landscaping located within the VDOT ROW. (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. Height or caliper has not been shown for the trees in the ROW. Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 3 8. Speed limit signs on all streets should be shown and labeled. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. Street name signs should be shown and labeled at each intersection. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 10. All entrances should be labeled with a VDOT designation. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show the VDOT entrance designation for the new entrance onto Willis Road from the existing Outpatient facility. There should only be one entrance onto the Willis Road from this parking lot. Amendments to the existing site plans of the current Martha Jefferson parcels (outpatient and foundation offices) will need to be included in the Martha Jefferson site plan set the next revision. The notes on sheets 5 and 6 will not be satisfactory. The county will need to review and approve the amendments to existing sites before approving the road plans. The changes to the adjacent site should be shown in the road plans as well. Separate applications for both amendments will be necessary. (Rev. 2) All entrances have the appropriate designation. Comments for the minor site plan amendment will be given in a separate letter. Approval of the roadway will not be granted until the minor site plans are approved. 11. Please show adequate sight distances to all entrances on the plans. (Rev. 1) Due to the grading of the proposed roadways and adjacent slopes, some entrances may not have adequate sight distance. For all entrances where sight distance may be questionable because of grading, please provide a vertical sight distance analysis. For instance, from the hospital's Northwest entrance looking south, the slope appears to block sight distance. This comment has also appeared in the site plan comment letter. Both sets should show the solutions to the sight distance issues. (Rev. 2) My analysis shows that even without considering any landscaping, adequate sight distance is not met in the following locations: from the main hospital entrance looking north and from the entrance at Sta. 16 on PJP looking south. The sight distance from the entrance at Sta. 24 on PJP looking north is also close to being inadequate. Please provide vertical profiles of the sight lines mentioned above to prove that sight distance is available. 12. Please provide updated Albemarle County general construction notes and notes for streets. They can be found on pages 31 -32 of the County Engineering Design Manual. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The plans appear to include an old version of the note sets. Please provide the current note sets on the plan. (Rev. 2) Comment not addressed. 13. Please show and label cross drain locations with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every major cut and fill transition or sag curve. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 14. Deflection angles in pipes must be 90 degrees or greater. (Pipe 6 -6 to 6 -1 and pipe 6 -28 to 6 -11 are shown with inadequate deflection angles.) (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Deflection angles of less than 90 degrees have been found in structures 3 -4, 6 -24, and 6 -13. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 15. Please provide the following on the pipe profile sheet: a. Existing ground b. Grate type for each grate inlet c. Inlet shaping on all structures d. End sections on all pipe outlets Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 3 e. Scour outlet protection at all outlets (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Ends sections need to be called out on the profiles. Inlet shaping has not been called out in all structures either. The 3ft riprap sump that has been specified in some structures is acceptable by the county, but it is not recommended. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed though the vertical scales on a few of the drainage profiles do not match up with the invert and rim elevations specified. 16. Pipe outlet velocity should not exceed 15 fps. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 17. Inlet computations should account for any carryover from inlets with less than 100% efficiency. An example calculation sheet can be found in Table 7 on page 51 in the County Engineering Design Manual. (Rev. 1) Inlet calculations have been shown accounting for carryover. However, calculations for inlets 6 -17, 5 -9, 5 -9A, and 5 -8 appear to be missing. In addition, the inlets on the median of Peter Jefferson Parkway should not be calculated assuming there is a 2ft gutter. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 18. Please provide outlet protection computations at all outfalls. (Rev. 1) Outlet protection should be computed and sized per VDOT's requirements. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 19. Please provide the acreage, hydrologic coefficient, and time of concentration for each drainage area on the proposed drainage area map. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 20. Several of the pipes shown are curved on the plan view sheets. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. Please show linear pipes between all structures. Please show the necessary easements for these pipes on any land not in VDOT ROW. Easements should be sized to the specifications listed in the Design Manual and should not contain any trees or permanent structures. 21. (Rev. 2) Radial pipes are allowed per VDOT standard. The drainage easements should be designated separate from the utility easements and marked "dedicated to public use '. It appears some of pipes are not at the correct widths as specified in the design manual (Width =10' + pipe diameter + 2' + 2' *(depth - 5'), minimum 20' easement). 22. Please show that the pipe system S- 8,9,10 draining to the existing pipe system is adequate and meets all water protection ordinance requirements. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. The analysis provided seems to be copied out of the original design file for the parkway construction which may not necessarily reflect the as -built condition/watershed. Additionally, the provided drawing (JCE) is difficult to read. Is "existing structure 5 -7" on sheet 2F the same as structure 25 on sheet 21)? (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 23. A road bond will be computed by the County once the plans have been approved. (Rev. 2) A road bond will not be required with this plan unless a CO is applied for with an incomplete roadway. 24. (Rev. 1) Some of the drainage profiles are hard to read. Please make sure all fonts are legible. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 25. (Rev. 1) The minimum slope on a pipe is 0.5 %. Please adjust. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed. 26. (Rev. 1) The maximum slope allowed on a pipe without anchors is 16 %. Please adjust or provide anchors per VDOT standard. (Rev. 2) Comment has been addressed 27. (Rev. 2) Include in the road plan set the profile of the pond's outlet structure.