The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201200043 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2012-07-10ALg�,�� 'IRGINZ� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Project: District Avenue Extended; SUB - 2012 -00043 and WPO- 2012 -00039 Plan preparer: Mr. Herb White, PE; W & W Associates Owner or rep.: Albemarle Place EAAP LLC Date received: 5 April 2012 (Rev. 1) 14 June 2012 Date of Comment: 14 May 2012 (Rev. 1) 10 July 2012 Engineer: Phil Custer The first revision of the ESC and road plans for District Avenue Extended (WPO- 2012 -00039 and SUB - 2012- 00043), received on 14 June 2012, have been reviewed. The plans can be approved after the following comments have been addressed: A. Road Plan Review Comments (SUB- 2012 - 00043) 1. Revised Proffer LB (3/23/2012) rek.J Lv L...s temporary street stating that the design standards for it must be approved by the Director of Community Development. The use of the rural cross - section for the majority of this street is acceptable. The superelevation of the street is permissible but not recommended by county staff because the slope of the southbound lane would direct drifting vehicles into the northbound lane rather than onto the shoulder as a normal crowned road would. The pedestrian path along the road must be upgraded to at least prime and double seal. Shade trees must also be provided on the south side of the walking path at an interval of no greater than 50ft. Please provide an unstopped through movement for District Avenue and one stop sign on Blackbird or provide traffic data showing that a three way stop is warranted. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 2. There is a safety issue at the Route 29 intersection due to the proximity of the retaining wall to the turning movement onto District Avenue from 29 Northbound. Please address this concern. If the beginning of the retaining wall can be shifted west, there will still be a safety concern associated with the start of the wall since it is inside the clearzone. To start, obtaining an offsite easement appears critical. (Rev. 1) The adjustment made by the applicant is acceptable. 3. Please provide traffic data supporting that the stacking distances at the intersection with Route 29 will be acceptable for this phase of construction. (Rev. 1) The stacking distances are currently acceptable, but after further review of the intersection, a change to the eastbound approach is required. The single eastbound lane must become the southern -most left turn lane, not the northern. The lane shift of 12ft must occur over 125ft. Please send a sketch of this change to myself and Joel when the adjustments have been made. 4. Please provide a gradual transition from the rural section to the urban section by tapering the edge of the shoulder. Please also gradually increase the height of the curb from 0" to 6" over at least 20ft. (Rev. 1) The 5ft curb transition is acceptable but the note on sheet C -9 isn't clear. 5. Please provide a speed limit sign for the northbound traffic at approximately Sta. 28 +00. The speed limit sign for southbound traffic appears too close to the intersection. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 6. Please clearly show in the grading plan and profile an adequate sump at Structures 139 and 140. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Please show the existing and proposed grade lines for the centerline of each roadside ditch. (Rev. 1) The applicant has provided road cross sections along the wall, which is acceptable. 8. In addition to the existing road grade shown, please provide the existing grade before mass grading so the areas of actual fill can be more clearly determined. This new existing grade line will influence where the correct locations for the CD -1's are. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 9. Please provide Inlet Shaping (IS -1) on all structures. (Rev. I) Comment has been addressed. 10. Please show in the plan all easements necessary for the road, sidewalks, and drainage channels and pipes. (Rev. 1) Access and sidewalk easements were not shown within the plan. These easements must be located at least Ift outside of the channel and sidewalk. 11. This comment is only advisory. The final plan for the first several hundred feet of Fourth Street from Route 29 will be expected to provide shade trees between the back of curb and retaining wall as shown in the approved preliminary plan. It is recommended that the design of this plan account for the expectations of the final construction plan. 12. VDOT approval must be provided. County Engineering supports VDOT's comment requiring a continuation of the Route 29 cross slope into District Avenue Extended and providing a low point west of the Route 29 gutterline. (Rev. 1) VDOT approval has not yet been received. B. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review Comments (WPO- 2012 - 00039) 1. This plan relies on the downstream sediment basin for the majority of its effectiveness. However, the extension to the 9 -month stabilization deadline granted by the County Engineer expires on July 26r''. If this plan continues to rely on the sediment basin, it will be invalidated if construction is not completed by July 26`" and the Board of Supervisors does not grant an extension to the plan. In order for the Board to consider granting an extension of the stabilization requirement, the request must be received by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by May 26`h. My recommendation is to make this request to the Board AND design this plan so that it can be considered independent of the mass grading plan /sediment basin. This can be done by providing a sediment trap below structure 135 and replacing the silt fence west of this outlet with a diversion to Sta. 33 +75. (Rev. 1) The applicant has indicated in this plan that it relies on the sediment basin approved with the mass grading plan. Reliance on this sediment basin for most of the sediment control is acceptable until the previous plan expires, in which case the plan currently under review becomes void. 2. Between steps 2 and 3 in the construction sequence, please add a step to construct all perimeter measures. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 3. It is critical to this plan to get the clean water to bypass the construction area so that the silt fence is not blown out. Please state in the construction sequence (see above comment) that structures 141, 142, 143, 144, and 145 as well as SCC -1 and SCC -3 must be completed and stabilized before road construction can begin. (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 4. The construction entrance must drain to a sediment trapping measure. (Rev. 1) The applicant has indicated in this plan that it relies on the sediment basin approved with the mass grading plan. Reliance on this sediment basin for most of the sediment control is acceptable until the previous plan expires, in which case the plan currently under review becomes void. 5. Please provide riprap or sod stabilization on all channels upstream of the stormwater pond and downstream of the ESC measures in this plan. (Rev. 1) The applicant has indicated in this plan that it relies on the sediment basin approved with the mass grading plan. Reliance on this sediment basin for most of the sediment control is acceptable until the previous plan expires, in which case the plan currently under review becomes void. 6. Please provide a RWD across the entrance at 29 to direct runoff towards the sediment basin /trap downstream of structure 135. (The VDOT comment regarding the vertical profile at this entrance seems to make this change unnecessary, however.) (Rev. 1) Comment has been addressed. 7. Please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the county engineer to receive an ESC bond. A grading permit cannot be issued until a bond is posted. (Rev. 1) A Bond Estimate Request Form has not yet been received. The owner of TMP 61 W -3 -- I8 will need to sign this form and be party to the ESC bond unless all necessary easements have been recorded. 8. (Rev.]) The ESC plan must be modified to show the increase to the land disturbance resulting from the addition of the waterline work. C. Stormwater Management Plan Review Comments (WPO- 2012 - 00039) The update to stormwater calculations for the intermittent pond BMP is acceptable. No modification to the existing SWM plan (WPO -2010- 00023) is warranted with this application. At the time of this plan's approval, two additional copies of Sheet C -18 will be necessary for me to include in the file. File: E2_rp ecp swm_PBC _ wpo- 2012 -00039 sub - 2012 -00043 District Ave Extended.doc