HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201200057 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2012-12-07Michael Koslow
From: Michael Koslow
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:49 AM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: Ellie Ray; Glenn Brooks
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Attachments: EngApprovalFactSheet.doc
Scott,
Please consider this official notice of county approval for Foothills Crossing Phases II &
II Road Plans (SUB2012- 00057) based on plans submitted 11/28/2012. Please see attached fact
sheet for engineering approvals.
Cordially, Michael
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow @albemarle.org
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Michael Koslow
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:31 PM
To: 'Scott Collins'
Cc: Ellie Ray
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Scott,
I still need to compare the sets vs. previously approved submittals; however Robbie has
approved the hydrant spacing, which was the last outstanding comment. I recommend proceeding
with the subdivision - road bond estimate request for Foothills Crossing and will send a
complete approval (pending above referenced check) next week.
Cordially, Michael
Michael Koslow, PE
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297
434 - 972 -4126 (fax)
mkoslow @albemarle.org
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Scott Collins [ mailto :scott @collins - engineering.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:49 PM
1
To: Michael Koslow
Subject: FW: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Michael -
VDOT has signed off on the Foothills project. I am planning on sending you down (4) sets of
plans tomorrow so the county can issue it's final approval on the plans.
Thx.
Scott
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:15 PM
To: Scott Collins
Subject: FW: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Scott,
We are approved from VDOT. I will need to send you the updated profile because I had to
change it again to meet Joel's requirement.
Please let me know how you want this information issued to the contractor.
Kaitlyn
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [J oel.DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:13 PM
To: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Kaitlyn,
This addresses my comments.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 422 -9373
joel.denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov
From: Kaitlyn Kostelec [mailto: kaitlyn @ collins - engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:58 AM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Joel,
Thank you for reviewing those sheets. I have attached updated road profiles reflecting the
minimum K distance of 37 requirement on Park Ridge Drive.
Please let me know if your comments are addressed.
Thank you,
Kaitlyn
4
Kaitlyn Kostelec Walthall, PE
LEED AP BD +C
Project Manager
Collins Engineering
8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 434.327.6528
FX: 703.918.4940
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 5:29 PM
To: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Kaitlyn,
The sag curves on Park Ridge Drive meet the sight distance value but are below the minimum K
value of 37. Appendix F -34 of the VDOT Road Design Manual states that sag curves have to
meet the sight distance and K value criteria. Leon Lane looks fine.
Thanks,
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 422 -9373
joel. denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov<mailto:joel .denunzio @vdot.virginia.gov>
From: Kaitlyn Kostelec [ mailto: kaitlyn @collins - engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:46 PM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Joel,
Thank you for your comments on the Foothills Phase II & III Plans. Please let me
week if our revisions emailed below have addressed your remaining comments, or if
additional information is needed. These are the last outstanding comments on the
plan approval.
I have reattached the pdfs for your convenience.
Thank you,
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn Kostelec Walthall, PE
LEED AP BD +C
Project Manager
Collins Engineering
8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 434.327.6528
FX: 703.918.4940
know this
any
set before
From: Scott Collins
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:26 AM
To: Joel DeNunzio, P.E.; Michael Koslow ( mkoslow @albemarle.org<mailto:mkoslow @albemarle.org>)
3
Cc: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Subject: FW: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Joel -
I believe VDOT had two final comments on the Foothills project about the stopping sight
distances. Attached are the pdfs that address these 2 comments. Let me know if there are
anything else needed for this.
Thx.
Scott Collins
Virginia Department of Transportation
1. There needs to be an adequate stopping site distance of 200' on Park Ridge Road on
either side of the intersection with the future connector road.
The vertical design has been modified on Park Ridge Drive and Leon Lane to accommodate the
200' SSD.
2. Show stopping site distances on the profile of Leon Lane.
The SSDs are shown as requested.
Thanks,
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn Kostelec Walthall, PE
LEED AP BD +C
Project Manager
Collins Engineering
8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 434.327.6528
FX: 703.918.4940
kaitlyn @collins- engineering.com<mailto: kaitlyn @collins - engineering.com>
4
Michael Koslow
From: Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:14 PM
To: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Kaitlyn,
This addresses my comments.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 422 -9373
ioel .denunzioCcbvdot.viroinia.00v
From: Kaitlyn Kostelec [mailto: kaitlyn C.acollins- engineering.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:58 AM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Joel,
Thank you for reviewing those sheets. I have attached updated road profiles reflecting the minimum K distance of 37
requirement on Park Ridge Drive.
Please let me know if your comments are addressed.
Thank you,
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn Kostelec Walthall, PE
LEED AP BD +C
Project Manager
Collins Engineering
8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 434.327.6528
FX: 703.918.4940
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [ ma iltojoel. DeN u nzio (WIDOT.vi rcl inia.cloy]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 5:29 PM
To: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Kaitlyn,
The sag curves on Park Ridge Drive meet the sight distance value but are below the minimum K value of 37. Appendix F-
34 of the VDOT Road Design Manual states that sag curves have to meet the sight distance and K value criteria. Leon
Lane looks fine.
Thanks,
Joel
1
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Residency Administrator
VDOT Charlottesville Residency
434 - 422 -9373
ioel .denunzio(a)vdot.viroinia.00v
From: Kaitlyn Kostelec [ma i Ito: kaitlyn01collins- engineering.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:46 PM
To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT)
Subject: RE: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Joel,
Thank you for your comments on the Foothills Phase II & III Plans. Please let me know this week if our revisions emailed
below have addressed your remaining comments, or if any additional information is needed. These are the last
outstanding comments on the set before plan approval.
I have reattached the pdfs for your convenience.
Thank you,
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn Kostelec Walthall, PE
LEED AP BD +C
Project Manager
Collins Engineering
8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 434.327.6528
FX: 703.918.4940
From: Scott Collins
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 11:26 AM
To: Joel DeNunzio, P.E.; Michael Koslow (mkoslow(&albemarle.org)
Cc: Kaitlyn Kostelec
Subject: FW: Foothills Sheets that Changed - Final VDOT comments
Joel -
I believe VDOT had two final comments on the Foothills project about the stopping sight distances. Attached are the
pdfs that address these 2 comments. Let me know if there are anything else needed for this.
Thx.
Scott Collins
Virginia Department of Transportation
1. There needs to be an adequate stopping site distance of 200' on Park Ridge Road on either side of the intersection
with the future connector road.
The vertical design has been modified on Park Ridge Drive and Leon Lane to accommodate the 200' SSD.
2. Show stopping site distances on the profile of Leon Lane.
The SSDs are shown as requested
Thanks,
Kaitlyn
Kaitlyn Kostelec Walthall, PE
LEED AP BD +C
Project Manager
Collins Engineering
8300 Greensboro Drive Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 434.327.6528
FX: 703.918.4940
kaitivn @collins- engineering.com
Ellie Ray
From: Oleynik, Megan (VDOT) [ Megan .Oleynik @vdot.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:28 AM
To: Ellie Ray
Cc: Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Subject: SUB 2012 -00057 Foothills Crossing Phase II & III - Road Plans
Ellie,
Joel and I have reviewed the subject plans and have the following comments
There needs to be an adequate stopping site distance of 200' on Park Ridge Road on either side of the
intersection with the future connector road.
2. Show stopping sight distances on the profile of Leon Lane.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Megan Oleynik
Engineering Intern
VDOT - Culpeper District
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project:
SUB - 2012 - 00057, Foothill Crossing Phase II & III Road Plan
Plan preparer:
Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.:
Foothills Crossing Inc.
Date received:
10 May 2012
11 July 2012
Date of Comment:
18 June 2012
27 July 2012
Engineer:
Phil Custer
Michael Koslow
The 2"d submittal of Road Plans for Foothill Crossing, received on 11 July 2012, has been reviewed. This
review does not include comments on the ESC or SWM plans (WP02012- 00047).The plans cannot be
approved as submitted and will require the following changes /corrections prior to final approval.
A. General Review Comments
1. The topography does not show the 20ft tall stockpile and other things that have been disturbed
since the original survey.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
2. A grading permit cannot be issued for sections of the site where a road plan has not been
approved. Please either reduce the scope of the ESC plan so that only a grading permit for Phases
II and III is sought or provide road plans for all other phases. Considering the county's 9 month
deadline for permanent seeding, it seems breaking up the development into constructible chunks is
prudent.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
3. The Phase I of Park Ridge Drive has not been completed. Several sheets in this application
assume that the road has been constructed. This application will need to include the construction
of this section of road in its scope. Please update all ESC and road sheets accordingly.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
4. Please replace all county notes sets within the plan with the note sets in the latest edition of the
design manual, available online.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
5. This plan cannot be approved until ACSA approval has been provided.
(Rev]) Comment has been acknowledged.
6. This plan cannot be approved until Planning Department approval has been provided.
(Rev]) Comment has been acknowledged.
The Tree Preservation Areas H and J are optimistic. Even if a contractor was able to preserve a
25ft by 25ft piece of forest, there may not be any tree within it. If there were one or two trees in
this small patch of land, they would be subject to much higher forces from the wind and likely
would not survive. No changes to the plan are required by this comment; I'm raising this now to
make the applicant aware that there may be issues in the future if the amount of tree preservation
assumed in this plan are not carried out and the property is subject to a Zoning Violation.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
B. Road and Drainage Plan Review Comments (SUB- 2012 - 00057)
I . I l,,u3�, l,,l,,l L., �.U11u11,,11< n.�. I I.e applicant has only submitted road plans for Phases II and III.
The road plan review focuses only on those elements contained in Phases II and III. Any comment
on an aspect of the plan that deals with other phases has only been provided as a courtesy to the
applicant. Please remove all information and detail from this set that is not necessary for the
review and approval of Phases H and III.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
2. The ADT for the eastern connector is 10,000, not 4,100.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
3. The assumed ADTs and proposed pavement sections for Elk Ridge Lane and Brookstone Court
are incorrect.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
4. Crossings of perennial streams require box culverts or arch culverts.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
5. In the plan and profile, please identify the station for start of construction (please refer to comment
A.3). At this location, please also write the Roudabush and Gale Station since stationing no longer
matches.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
6. An ADT of 2000 for Park Ridge Drive underestimates the full buildout traffic for this road. The
existing VDOT count for Park Ridge Drive between Route 240 and Western Ridge is 4000. A
value closer to 3000 seems more appropriate for this segment of Park Ridge Road once the Eastern
Connector is operational. This would increase the design standard for the road to the 30mph
category. The cross - section, horizontal geometry, and vertical geometry are already acceptable to
the 30mph Design Speed Standard. The following must be changed: the listed design speed (from
25mph to 30mph), the pavement strength, and the required sight distance onto Park Ridge Drive.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
7. Please provide a stop sign and a street name sign at the intersection of Park Ridge Drive and
Cardinal Crest Court.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
8. Please provide at least two speed limit signs on Park Ridge Drive.
(Rev]) Please relocate one of the speed limit signs to face eastbound Park Ridge Drive.
9. The designs of the stormwater structures at Sta 33 +50 and Sta. 34 +00 must be included in this
plan set.
(Rev]) Structures P1 -81 through PI -78 do not appear on as -built plans for WPO2007- 00044.
Please provide spread calculations for these structures. Please provide a detail for connection
of Structure P1 -78 to existing culvert as proposed on sheet S -3.
10. Inlet efficiency seems to be incorrectly calculated in one of the curb inlet tables.
(Rev]) Inlet efficiency is calculated as E = I- (1- L1Lt) ^1.8 per VDOT Drainage Manual
equation 9.8. Please update the inlet efficiency for structures 22, 24, 42, 80B, and 80D as
shown on Table 7 sheet DP -3.
11. Please increase the width of the sidewalks (and therefore the necessary ROW) along Cardinal
Crest Court to 5ft.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
12. Please provide overland flow relief in the event of failure of inlet 38.
(Rev]) Comment has been addressed.
13. VDOT approval is required.
(Rev]) Comment has been acknowledged.
14. It is recommended that a face -of -curb to face -of -curb width of 32ft is proposed for Cardinal Crest
Court to comply with Fire and Rescue's latest road standard request.
(Rev 1) Comment has been add- -----'
15. (Rev]) Please label the following pipes on sheet S -3: 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 37, and 80C.
File: C: \Users\mkoslow\Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase II and
III\E2_MAK_rp_SUB201200057 Foothill Crossing Ph II and III.doc
_ p
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott @collins - engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 6, 2012
Revl : July 25, 2012
Subject: SUB 2012— 00057 Foothills Crossing — Phase II & III Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] This application was not submitted for subdivision plat review; comments provided are for
Road Plans only.
2. [13.4.1] Environmental standards. Street trees are required to be shown on the road plans for this
development to meet the requirement for bonus density. Please provide the landscape plan at 50 scale so
that potential utility conflicts can be more easily identified during review. You might also consider using a
variety of trees instead of just one species to avoid creating a monoculture.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Please revise the scale on Sheets LL -1 and LL -2 (both written
and graphic); the scale is presented as 1" = 80', but the comment response letter says the scale has
been changed to 50. There appears to be a proposed street tree directly in front of the access that
runs between lots 75 and 76; please shift the tree(s) in one direction or the other to eliminate this
conflict.
3. [13.4.1] Environmental standards. To achieve the 10% bonus density for preserving 20% or more in
wooded areas, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9, including a conservation plan checklist, is
required. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated. The tree preservation labels do not
appear to accurately point to the tree preservation /protection measures; please correct.
Revl : Comment not fully addressed. Please add tree protection fencing on Woodland Preservation
Areas 'A' and `E' on the sides that are adjacent to the proposed extension of Park Ridge Drive.
Please label Woodland Preservation Area 'K'.
Please contact Ellie Ray at the Division of Current Development by using eray(a)albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832
ext. 3432 for further information.
ALg�,��
�'IRGINZ�
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: SUB - 2012 - 00057, Foothill Crossing Road Plan
WPO- 2012 - 00047, Foothill Crossing ESC and SWM Plans
Plan preparer: Mr. Scott Collins, PE; Collins Engineering
Owner or rep.: Foothills Crossing Inc.
Date received: 10 May 2012
Date of Comment: 18 June 2012
Engineer: Phil Custer
The E &SC, SWM, and Road Plans for Foothill Crossing, received on 10 May 2012, have been reviewed.
The plans cannot be approved as submitted and will require the following changes /corrections prior to final
approval.
A. General Review Comments
1. The topography does not show the 20ft tall stockpile and other things that have been disturbed
since the original survey.
2. A grading permit cannot be issued for sections of the site where a road plan has not been
approved. Please either reduce the scope of the ESC plan so that only a grading permit for Phases
I1 and III is sought or provide road plans for all other phases. Considering the county's 9 month
deadline for permanent seeding, it seems breaking up the development into constructible chunks is
prudent.
3. The Phase I of Park Ridge Drive has not been completed. Several sheets in this application
assume that the road has been constructed. This application will need to include the construction
of this section of road in its scope. Please update all ESC and road sheets accordingly.
4. Please replace all county notes sets within the plan with the note sets in the latest edition of the
design manual, available online.
5. This plan cannot be approved until ACSA approval has been provided.
6. This plan cannot be approved until Planning Department approval has been provided.
7. The Tree Preservation Areas H and J are optimistic. Even if a contractor was able to preserve a
25ft by 25ft piece of forest, there may not be any tree within it. If there were one or two trees in
this small patch of land, they would be subject to much higher forces from the wind and likely
would not survive. No changes to the plan are required by this comment; I'm raising this now to
make the applicant aware that there may be issues in the future if the amount of tree preservation
assumed in this plan are not carried out and the property is subject to a Zoning Violation.
B. Road and Drainage Plan Review Comments (SUB- 2012 - 00057)
1. Please refer to Comment A.2. The applicant has only submitted road plans for Phases II and III.
The road plan review focuses only on those elements contained in Phases II and III. Any comment
on an aspect of the plan that deals with other phases has only been provided as a courtesy to the
applicant. Please remove all information and detail from this set that is not necessary for the
review and approval of Phases II and III.
2. The ADT for the eastern connector is 10,000, not 4,100.
3. The assumed ADTs and proposed pavement sections for Elk Ridge Lane and Brookstone Court
are incorrect.
4. Crossings of perennial streams require box culverts or arch culverts.
5. In the plan and profile, please identify the station for start of construction (please refer to comment
A.3). At this location, please also write the Roudabush and Gale Station since stationing no longer
matches.
6. An ADT of 2000 for Park Ridge Drive underestimates the full buildout traffic for this road. The
existing VDOT count for Park Ridge Drive between Route 240 and Western Ridge is 4000. A
value closer to 3000 seems more appropriate for this segment of Park Ridge Road once the Eastern
Connector is operational. This would increase the design standard for the road to the 30mph
category. The cross - section, horizontal geometry, and vertical geometry are already acceptable to
the 30mph Design Speed Standard. The following must be changed: the listed design speed (from
25mph to 30mph), the pavement strength, and the required sight distance onto Park Ridge Drive.
7. Please provide a stop sign and a street name sign at the intersection of Park Ridge Drive and
Cardinal Crest Court.
8. Please provide at least two speed limit signs on Park Ridge Drive.
9. The designs of the stormwater structures at Sta 33 +50 and Sta. 34 +00 must be included in this
plan set.
10. Inlet efficiency seems to be incorrectly calculated in one of the curb inlet tables.
11. Please increase the width of the sidewalks (and therefore the necessary ROW) along Cardinal
Crest Court to 5ft.
12. Please provide overland flow relief in the event of failure of inlet 38.
13. VDOT approval is required.
14. It is recommended that a face -of -curb to face -of -curb width of 32ft is proposed for Cardinal Crest
Court to comply with Fire and Rescue's latest road standard request.
C. Stormwater Management Plan Review Comments (WPO- 2012 - 00047)
1. The applicant might not be fully mindful of how the county will review this property with regard
to Stormwater Treatment. For all properties that drain directly to the Lickinghole Regional
Stormwater Management Facility, stormwater quality is taken care of by the payment of pro -rata
fee. This fee, for the entire property, was already paid in August of 2009. Therefore, the county
considers stormwater quality treatment for this property already addressed. The applicant may
simply convert these facilities to dry detention basins. However, if this application continues to
propose water quality facilities, they must be designed according to the standards of the VSMH.
The following comments have to do with review of the water quality facilities currently proposed
by the applicant (the remaining comments have to do with just detention):
a. This parcel is within a water supply protection area and the removal rate computation must
refer to this row, not the development area row. This puts the target removal rates for
facilities 1 and 2 as 70% and 57%, respectively. This causes Facilities 1 and 2 to
undertreating their watersheds.
b. To receive a 35% removal rate, the orifice on the extended detention facility must be sized
to drain the 2xWQV in 30 hours using the equation in Chapter 5 of the Virginia
Stormwater Management Handbook. The current proposal is not satisfactory.
c. The forebay in the extended detention facility is not effective. Most discharges will flow
through the forebay with very little settling or other treatment.
2. Overall, the setup of the detention calculations is not correct. The following comments are
provided for Sheets SWM -1, SWM -2, and the overall outline presented in the detention
calculations.
a. On SWM -2, the northeast corner of DA -lA is not accurate; Park Ridge Road north of
Cardinal Crest Court is captured in the pipe system to Stormwater Facility 1.
b. On SWM -2, the applicant assumes that 50ft south of the ROW for Brookstone Court is
redirected to Stormwater Facility 1 which is impractical and not even exhibited by the
current grading plan.
c. Stormwater Facility 2 must compensate for the free release of the increased discharge from
Phase I, half of lots 9 -17, and the uncaptured portion of Park Ridge Road. This must be
clearly demonstrated in the Detention Compliance Tables.
d. Stormwater Facility 1 must compensate for the free release of the increased discharge from
most of lots 76 -84, 39 -53, 27 -32, and the rest of the Eastern Connector that has not
currently been accounted for in this stormwater management detention analysis (south of
post -dev 1B). Except for a Drainage Area 1B, these free release areas seem to be ignored.
Because water quality requirements are covered by the Lickinghole basin, many lots and
roadways can be released freely but this increase in post - development discharge must be
accounted for and mitigated by overdetention of the areas that are directed to a detention
facility. This calculation must be clearly exhibited in the Detention Compliance Tables.
e. In the pre - development condition, rain falling on the lagoons does not runoff.
3. The following modifications to the routings are required:
a. The routing of Stormwater Facility 2 does not match the design of the lowest orifice.
b. The antivortex devices should be routed "in riser" not "through dam".
c. The invert used for outlet barrel in the routing should be the invert out of the riser, not
invert out of the pipe.
d. Please update the routings as each facility is modified. Additional comments may be
required if new errors are introduced to the routing calculations.
4. All dry facilities need low flow channels from the pipe outlet directly to the riser that is sized to be
non - erosive during the 2 year storm and have a minimum slope of 0.5 %.
5. Please provide more detail on what needs to be done to the riser in stormwater facility 1. There are
also no orifice or elevations specified. Without the routing, which is hard to read without a
familiarity with program, it would be difficult to determine all characteristics of the riser.
6. The details for both facilities show a impervious core and cut off trench, but facility 1 is already
constructed. Does the contractor need to reconstruct this facility to provide the impervious core on
the plan?
7. Emergency spillways must be proposed in cut. For Stormwater Facility 1, it seems a deeper
spillway will likely be necessary because a 75ft spillway in cut would be impractical. The spillway
to Stormwater Facility 2 simply needs to be rotated slightly.
8. Please replace all references to Trashrack Technical Bulletin #7 with a reference to the exact
trashrack parameters within Chapter 2 of the Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook.
9. The perforated pipe in the extended detention facility is not an acceptable trashrack.
10. What kinds of seepage control have been constructed or proposed for Stormwater Facility 1?
11. Access to Stormwater Facility 1 must also be provided from Phase H since it will be the sole route
to this facility for an indeterminate amount of time.
12. Direct vehicular access to the forebay and pipe system outlet into Stormwater Facility 1 is needed.
13. The 90 degree turn just after the 10% slope on the grass access path is dangerous and unnecessary.
Please put more of a horizontal curve on this road with a consistent grade from the pipe (from
Brookstone) crossing.
14. Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreements are needed for all parcels with a stormwater facility
proposed on it. Please submit these completed documents to Ana Kilmer after reviewing the
information online.
15. It is recommended that the embankment of Stormwater Facility 2 is designed for a full buildout
scenario of its watershed for the 100 -year storm to avoid any increase in liability for the HOA
when the adjacent property is developed.
16. Once the plans are approved, please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the
County Engineer to receive a SWM bond computation.
D. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Review Comments (WPO- 2012 - 00047)
1. Please refer to Comment A.2. The ESC plan cannot be approved without all road plans approved.
Considering the county's 9month deadline for permanent seeding, it seems breaking up the
development into constructible chunks is prudent.
2. Please provide all state and federal permits for disturbances to streams and wetlands.
3. ESC -3 is essentially a blank sheet. ESC -2 contains the entire ESC plan crammed into one sheet at
a scale that is very difficult to read and review. Please disperse the ESC information in two
phases: one with existing grades and perimeter measures and the second one with final proposed
contours and road infrastructure in place. Show the drainage area to each sediment trap and
sediment basin for each phase and make sure each facility is sized for the phase when its drainage
area is the largest. A smaller scale, no greater than 50, must also be used for each of the phases.
Once the plan is clearer, additional comments may be provided.
4. Many of the diversion dikes at the perimeter of the construction site are too flat to be constructed
properly, shown going uphill, or proposed perpendicular to existing gullies which will result in a
blow out. Please add more sediment trapping measures, where necessary, and adjust problematic
diversions so that they can be constructed with a reasonable downhill slope. The diversions west
of sediment basin 5 to the western corner of the site and north of sediment trap 2 are the biggest
concerns. Sediment traps or basins will likely be needed around MH 32 and MH 24.
5. Please remove the internal diversion from the site.
6. The edge of the existing pavement is a few feet after Raven Stone Road and this is where the
limits of construction must begin. However, providing a construction entrance here with the
existing houses on either side of the road would be difficult to achieve. Therefore, the CE(paved
wash rack) must be moved farther south into the watershed of Sediment Trap 1 with a ROW
diversion directing runoff across the travelway. Construction road stabilization from the edge of
existing pavement to this ROW diversion will be needed for the entire width of the stream
crossing. This area must remain clean from mud.
7. The construction of the stream crossing for the Eastern Connector must comply with County
Engineer Commentary #5. Sediment Basin 4 can be used as one of these flanking sediment
trapping measures if it is lowered considerably.
8. Please detail and provide typical VESCH references for how the construction of the stream
crossing will occur. For example, will a temporary stream crossing be necessary? If so, where and
what size is the crossing?
9. Sediment Basin 4 becomes isolated from half its drainage area when the construction of the
Eastern Connector occurs because it will act as a diversion keeping dirty water on the eastern side
of the road. Please provide another measure adjacent to the stream on the eastern side of this road.
10. There are critical issues with the design of Sediment Basin 1. First of all, the construction of the
northern end of the Eastern Connector cannot be treated by the sediment basin until the storm pipe
has been placed, which is unacceptable. Secondly, structure 106 becomes the low point in the
facility once pipe 105 is constructed. The riser and structure 106 will be about the same elevation
and water will escape out the barrel and downstream of structure 106, which is a problem. Lastly,
the outlet of pipe 105 will be placed below the water elevation in the sediment basin and will be a
risk of clogging. Please move the invert out of pipe 105 to at least the wet storage elevation so
flushing out of the pipe can occur. As a result of these comments, Sediment Basin 1 will likely
need to be moved closer to the stream.
11. In the construction sequence, there is a mention of construction of a greenway through the wooded
area. Please clarify. If a greenway trail is to be constructed, please identify what standard it must
meet, show all improvements for it, and include all necessary ESC measures in the ESC plan. If a
greenway trail is not to be constructed by the applicant, please remove any reference to it from the
plan set.
12. Please provide Inlet Protection (IP) on all inlets proposed in Phase II of the ESC plan.
13. Inlet protection for curb inlets on grade will simply cause the runoff to pass on to the next structure
until a sump or basin is encountered. This would cause the drainage area to Sediment Trap 1 to
increase dramatically in Phase I1. Please convert this facility to a basin sized for its drainage area
from Park Ridge Road and the area to the north or design an alternative method that addresses this
concern.
14. Sediment traps have a maximum height of 5ft. Please adjust the design of sediment trap to meet
this requirement.
15. A diversion is needed west of Sediment Trap 1 at the edge of the limits of disturbance since the
topography shows some of the disturbed area sheet flowing directly to the stream.
16. The soil boundaries are not clear on the ESC plan. It may be best to show the soil information on
sheet E -1 instead.
17. The disturbance southwest of Sediment Basin 2 is not protected and seems unnecessary. Please
clarify.
18. Please provide more information on Sediment Basin 3. It does not appear there is a pipe or riser in
the current proposal.
19. Please remove the 15" pipe from Sediment Basin 2, if it is no longer needed, rather than plugging
it in place and it being a potential maintenance issue. Replace with a metal drain valve if one is
desired by the applicant.
20. Please remove details from the previous design if the details contain conflicting information as the
current proposal.
21. Please provide dewatering orifice calculations. Each seems to be oversized. The calculations
should use required dry volume and the height of required dry volume rather than provided.
22. Please move the note regarding the regrading of Stormwater Facility 1 from the SWM sheets to
Phase 1 of the ESC plan
23. Please show Permanent Seeding (PS) symbols throughout the plan.
24. Please show staging, stockpile, and parking areas on the plan.
25. An analysis of all downstream channels per MS -19 must be provided. The applicant has shown a
few cross - sections downstream of detention facilities in the plan but has not provided any analysis.
Also, the cross - sections are not provided to the point that the 1% rule is reached.
26. Once the plans are approved, please provide a completed Bond Estimate Request Form to the
County Engineer to receive a ESC bond computation. All parcels disturbed with this plan must
sign this bond request form and be party to the bond unless easements are recorded.
E. Mitigation Plan Review Comments
As was required with the previous construction plan, a mitigation plan for all non - exempt
disturbances to the buffer is required. Please provide a sheet showing all proposed stream buffer
disturbances (include those disturbed by Phase I as well as possible exempted disturbance),
proposed mitigation planting, and a table comparing the disturbed area, minus the exempted areas
(to be reviewed by the Engineering Department), and the newly planted areas. Because of changes
to staffing levels, the county has not setup a program to accept dedication of stream buffers for
perpetual agreements as expected shortly after 2007. That option is no longer available to the
applicant.
_ p
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434 - 296 -5832
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins (scott @collins - engineering.com)
From: Ellie Ray, PLA, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: June 6, 2012
Subject: SUB 2012— 00057 Foothills Crossing — Phase II & III Road Plans
Fax 434 - 972 -4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the Road Plans referenced above once
the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision /Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. [Comment] This application was not submitted for subdivision plat review; comments provided are for
Road Plans only.
2. [13.4.1] Environmental standards. Street trees are required to be shown on the road plans for this
development to meet the requirement for bonus density. Please provide the landscape plan at 50 scale so
that potential utility conflicts can be more easily identified during review. You might also consider using a
variety of trees instead of just one species to avoid creating a monoculture.
3. [13.4.1] Environmental standards. To achieve the 10% bonus density for preserving 20% or more in
wooded areas, a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9, including a conservation plan checklist, is
required. The conservation plan checklist must be signed and dated. The tree preservation labels do not
appear to accurately point to the tree preservation /protection measures; please correct.
Please contact Ellie Ray at the Division of Current Development by using eray(cDalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832
ext. 3432 for further information.
Philip Custer
From: Ellie Ray
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:11 PM
To: Philip Custer
Subject: FW: Foothill Crossing Phase II and III Road Plans
I assume these are more relevant to your review than mine. How does this work when something is submitted as purely
a road plan .... are you the 'lead reviewer' or am I? I plan to review for street trees, sidewalks and a few other little
things, but this is mostly an engineering review I would assume. Anyway, I've never reviewed a SUB that's a road plan
only, so let me know if there is some sort of process I'm unaware of.
Thanks,
Ellie Carter Ray, PLA
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 x. 3432
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. (VDOT) [mailto: Joel .DeNunzio @VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:04 PM
To: Ellie Ray
Subject: Foothill Crossing Phase II and III Road Plans
Foothill Crossing Phase II and III Road Plans
Ellie,
I have reviewed the subject road plan and have the following comments:
1. The temporary cul -de -sac will need to have a shoulder and ditch section around the bulb in accordance with the GS-
SSAR Table 2 in the VDOT Road Design Manual appendix B. The temporary easement around the cul -de -sac needs to
include the drainage ditch. The grading plan needs to show the temporary grading or a temporary grading detail needs
to be shown. All pavement in the temporary cul -de -sac will need to be removed when the road is extended, about
station 21 +90 to 23 +00. A t type turnaround may be a better option.
2. The longitudinal storm sewer needs to be located outside of the pavement except at crossings. The conduit should be
on the interior of the horizontal curve.
3. Add mandatory VDOT inspection notes to the general notes sheet.
4. Show UD -4 on the typical section drawings for Park Ridge Dr. and the connector road.
5. The pavement section for Park Ridge Dr. and the connector road needs to use 21B aggregate.
6. Surface asphalt SM -9.5 has a maximum thickness of 1.5 inches. If two inches are used it needs to be SM -12.5 at one inch
lifts for construction purposes as required by the Secondary Road Pavement Manual. 3 inches of surface asphalt is not
permitted.
7. Note #1 in the drainage notes needs to indicate a minimum 2 feet of cover for pipes.
8. Storm structure #2 is over 12 feet in height and needs a safety slab.
9. Street trees need to be located 30 feet back from all intersections as shown in the VDOT Road Design Manual, appendix
B(1) -44.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
VDOT Culpeper
Land Development
434 - 589 -5871
Joel .denunzioCcbvdot.virainia.aov
�OF AL
?RGINI�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
21 October 2014
FOOTHILLS CROSSING INC
321 East Main Street
Suite 201
Charlottesville, VA 22901 -1464
Re: Foothill Crossing Phase 2 Road bond inspection
Your bond reduction and release requests for Foothill Crossing Phase 2 have been processed. The current bond amount
is $1,143,010. The $1,143,010 road bond amount cannot be reduced at this time. The processing, inspection, and
acceptance of public roads are administered solely by VDOT. The County is not involved in this process until the road
is ready for acceptance.
Link to public road acceptance procedure for Albemarle County:
http:/ /www.albemarle.orWupload/imaees /forms center /departments /Community Development/forms/Engineering and
WPO Forms/Road Forms/Road Inspections & Acceptance Acceptance - Public Road Acceptance Procedure 07- 26- 2012.pdf
Thank you for the recent submittal of the Stormwater system video with as -built utility plan. The video appeared to
show the Stormwater pipes were installed properly in the road. However the yard drainpipes appear to have been
crushed or block, but are not part of this road bond amount. The yard drains should be cleared and replaced as need to
protect the properties from flooding prior to passing this problem over to the homeowners' association.
I have itemized the list to help facilitate adherence to the County requirements. Items in bold will need to be addressed
prior to road acceptance into the system:
a. VDOT approval for public section of subdivision is required. Please submit as -built plans
approved by VDOT.
b. Written documentation of acceptance from VDOT for the entire roadway or for completed
items.
c. Certificate of completion will be filled out and signed.
Please contact me if you have any questions at 343 - 296 -5832 ext. 3283.
Sincerely,
Max Greene
County Engineering Technician
MRG/
Copy: file
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision - note this estimate covers Phase II o
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Road Estimate
Park Ridge Drive $965,410
Cardinal Crest Court $177,600
Total $1,143,010
C:\ Users \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase II and III \2013 -02 -25 -road bond
estimate_SUB201200057 - Phase 11 only 2/25/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision - note this estimate covers Phase II of Road Plans only
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item
Item
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Number
installed
/ compete
adjustment for infl
cost remaining
Park Ridge Drive
road length
1346.3 ft
1
aggregate base
8.0 in d
1346.3 ft L
32.0 ft W
2010.4 ton
$35.00
$70,365.57
0%
$70,365.57
2
blotted or prime &double seal
1346.3 ft L
32.0 ft W
4786.8 sy
$10.00
$47,867.73
0%
$47,867.73
3
asphalt base
5.0 in d
1346.3 ft L
32.0 ft W
1319.4 tons
$70.00
$92,354.81
0%
$92,354.81
4
asphalt surface
1.5 in d
1346.3 ft L
32.0 ft W
395.8 tons
$120.00
$47,496.76
0%
$47,496.76
5
curb CG -2
0.0 ft
$13.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
6
curb CG -6
2692.6 ft
$15.00
$40,388.40
0%
$40,388.40
7
sidewalk, concrete (5')
2692.6 ft
$17.00
$45,773.52
0%
$45,773.52
8
ramp CG -12
2 each
$350.00
$700.00
0%
$700.00
9
street name sign
1 each
$200.00
$200.00
0%
$200.00
10
traffic control sign
3 each
$200.00
$600.00
0%
$600.00
11
Street Landscape
60 Each
60 each
$150.00
$9,000.00
0%
$9,000.00
12
guardrail
0 ES @
3000
0.0 ft
$17.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
13
drop inlet or grate
18 each
$3,500.00
$63,000.00
0%
$63,000.00
14
standard manhole frame top (not inlet)
3 each
$500.00
$1,500.00
0%
$1,500.00
15
manhole structure (per ft. rise)
33 ft
$450.00
$14,850.00
0°%
$14,850.00
16
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
15.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
296.0 ft
$35.00
$10,360.00
0%
$10,360.00
17
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
771.0 ft
$40.00
$30,840.00
0%
$30,840.00
18
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
24.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
334.0 ft
$50.00
$16,700.00
0%
$16,700.00
19
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
30.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
1 EC -1
35.0 ft
$65.00
$2,775.00
0%
$2,775.00
20
rip -rap, placed
0.0 ft d
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 ton
$60.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
21
clear and grub (for wooded sites)
1346.3 ft L
91.0 ft W
2.8 acre
$24,000.00
$67,499.44
0%
$67,499.44
22
grading (per cy for cut or import only)
0.0 cy fill
6572.1 cy cut
6572.1 cy
$13.00
$170,874.16
0%
$170,874.16
23
as -built drawings (1 k + price per 0.1 mi.)
1346.3 ft L
0.25498 mi.
3 Isum
$2,000.00
$7,000.00
0%
$7,000.00
24
survey and layout (price per 0.1 mi.)
1346.3 ft L
0.25498 mi.
3 Isum
$2,000.00
$7,000.00
0%
$7,000.00
25
mobilization
1 Isum
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
26
materials testing
1346.3 ft L
2.69256 inc of 500'
4 each
$200.00
$740.00
0%
$740.00
27
compaction testing
1346.3 ft L
2.69256 inc of 500'
4 each
$200.00
$740.00
0%
$740.00
28
CBR tests (1 every 0.1 mi. per road)
1346.3 ft L
2.69256 inc of 500'
4 each
$200.00
$740.00
0%
$740.00
29
stone depth inspections
1346.3 ft L
2.69256 inc of 500'
4 each
$200.00
$740.00
0%
$740.00
30
pavement inspections
1346.3 ft L
2.69256 inc of 500'
4 each
$200.00
$740.00
0%
$740.00
31
pipe and drainage video inspections
100 ft
$1.00
$100.00
0%
$100.00
32
VDOT surety (1 lane)
1346.3 ft L
0.25498 mi.
2 Lanes
$2,000.00
$10,199.09
0%
$10,199.09
33
VDOT maintenance fee (1 In rd, 1 yr)
1346.3 ft L
0.25498 mi.
2 Lanes
$150.00
$764.93
0%
$764.93
34
VDOT admin. Cost recovery fee(1 lane)
1346.3 ft L
0.25498 mi.
2 Lanes
$100.00
$759.95
0%
$759.95
$763,169.36
cost sum
$763,169.36
proj mgmt
$114,475.40
$114,475.40
contingency
$87,764.48
$87,764.48
Total
$965,410
$965,410
sers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013 -02 -25 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 - Phase 11 only 2/25/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision - note this estimate covers Phase II of Road Plans only
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item Item No. Unit Unit Cost Cost
Number installed % compete
adjustment for infI cost remaining
aers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and III \2013 -02 -25 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 - Phase 11 only 2/25/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision - note this estimate covers Phase II of Road Plans only
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item
Item
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Number
installed
% compete
adjustment for inf6
cost remaining
Cardinal
Crest Court
road length 273.0 ft
1
aggregate base
5.0 in d
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
223.0 ton
$35.00
$7,803.25
0%
$7,803.25
2
blotted or prime &double seal
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
849.3 sy
$10.00
$8,493.33
0%
$8,493.33
3
asphalt base
0.0 in d
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
0.0 tons
$100.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
4
asphalt surface
1.5 in d
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
70.2 tons
$120.00
$8,427.51
0%
$8,427.51
5
curb CG -2
0.0 ft
$13.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
6
curb CG -6
546.0 ft
$15.00
$8,190.00
0%
$8,190.00
7
sidewalk, concrete (6)
546.0 ft
$17.00
$9,282.00
0%
$9,282.00
8
ramp CG -12
0 ft
$350.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
9
street name sign
0 each
$200.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
10
traffic control sign
0 each
$200.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
11
Street Landscape
11 Each
11 each
$150.00
$1,650.00
0%
$1,650.00
12
guardrail
0 ES @
3000
0.0 ft
$17.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
13
drop inlet or grate
4 each
$3,500.00
$14,000.00
0%
$14,000.00
14
standard manhole frame top (not inlet)
0 each
$500.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
15
manhole structure (per ft. rise)
0 ft
$450.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
16
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
42.0 ft
$40.00
$1,680.00
0%
$1,680.00
17
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
24.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
214.0 ft
$50.00
$10,700.00
0%
$10,700.00
18
rip -rap, placed
1.0 ft d
20.0 ft L
10.0 ft W
15.0 ton
$60.00
$900.00
0%
$900.00
19
clear and grub (for wooded sites)
273.0 ft L
90.0 ft W
0.6 acre
$24,000.00
$13,537.19
0%
$13,537.19
20
grading (per cy for cut or import only)
0.0 cy fill
1729.0 cy cut
1729.0 cy
$13.00
$44,954.00
0%
$44,954.00
21
as -built drawings (1 k + price per 0.1 mi.)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
22
survey and layout (price per 0.1 mi.)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
23
mobilization
1 Isum
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
24
materials testing
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
25
compaction testing
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
26
CBR tests (1 every 0.1 mi. per road)
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
27
stone depth inspections
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
28
pavement inspections
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
29
pipe and drainage video inspections
100 ft
$1.00
$100.00
0%
$100.00
30
VDOT surety (1 lane)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
2 Lanes
$2,000.00
$2,068.18
0%
$2,068.18
31
VDOT maintenance fee (1 In rd, 1 yr)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
2 Lanes
$150.00
$155.11
0%
$155.11
32
VDOT admin. Cost recovery fee(1 lane)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
2 Lanes
$100.00
$353.41
0%
$353.41
$140,393.99
cost sum
$140,393.99
proj mgmt
$21,059.10
$21,059.10
contingency
$16,145.31
$16,145.31
Total
$177,600
$177,600
C:\ Users \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and III \2013 -02 -25 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 - Phase 11 only 2/25/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision - note this estimate covers Phase II of Road Plans only
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item Item
Number
No. Unit Unit Cost Cost
installed % compete
adjustment for infl; cost remaining
C:\ Users \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013 -02 -25 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 - Phase 11 only 2/25/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Road Estimate
Park Ridge Drive
$1,347,550
Brazos Court
$177,600
Leon Lane
$160,000
Total $1,685,150
Jsers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase II and 111\2013-02-01 -road bond
mate SUB201200057 2/7/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item
Item
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Number
installed
/ compete
adjustment for infl
cost remaining
Park Ridge Drive
road length
1964.7 ft
1
aggregate base
8.0 in d
1964.7 ft L
32.0 ft W
2934.0 ton
$35.00
$102,689.37
0%
$102,689.37
2
blotted or prime &double seal
1964.7 ft L
32.0 ft W
6985.7 sy
$10.00
$69,856.71
0%
$69,856.71
3
asphalt base
5.0 in d
1964.7 ft L
32.0 ft W
1925.4 tons
$70.00
$134,779.79
0%
$134,779.79
4
asphalt surface
1.5 in d
1964.7 ft L
32.0 ft W
577.6 tons
$80.00
$46,210.21
0%
$46,210.21
5
curb CG -2
0.0 ft
$13.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
6
curb CG -6
3929.4 ft
$15.00
$58,941.60
0%
$58,941.60
7
sidewalk, concrete (5')
3929.4 ft
$17.00
$66,800.48
0%
$66,800.48
8
ramp CG -12
3 ft
$350.00
$1,050.00
0%
$1,050.00
9
street name sign
1 each
$200.00
$200.00
0%
$200.00
10
traffic control sign
4 each
$200.00
$800.00
0%
$800.00
11
Street Landscape
78 Each
78 each
$150.00
$11,700.00
0%
$11,700.00
12
guardrail
0 ES @
3000
0.0 ft
$17.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
13
drop inlet or grate
23 each
$3,500.00
$80,500.00
0°%
$80,500.00
14
standard manhole frame top (not inlet)
3 each
$500.00
$1,500.00
0%
$1,500.00
15
manhole structure (per ft. rise)
33 ft
$450.00
$14,850.00
0°%
$14,850.00
16
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
15.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
569.0 ft
$35.00
$19,915.00
0%
$19,915.00
17
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
1188.0 ft
$40.00
$47,520.00
0%
$47,520.00
18
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
24.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
334.0 ft
$50.00
$16,700.00
0%
$16,700.00
19
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
30.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
1 EC -1
35.0 ft
$65.00
$2,775.00
0%
$2,775.00
20
rip -rap, placed
0.0 ft d
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 ton
$60.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
21
clear and grub (for wooded sites)
1964.7 ft L
91.0 ft W
4.1 acre
$24,000.00
$98,506.62
0%
$98,506.62
22
grading (per cy for cut or import only)
0.0 cy fill
9591.0 cy cut
9591.0 cy
$13.00
$249,366.00
0%
$249,366.00
23
as -built drawings (1 k + price per 0.1 mi.)
1964.7 ft L
0.37211 mi.
4 Isum
$2,000.00
$9,000.00
0%
$9,000.00
24
survey and layout (price per 0.1 mi.)
1964.7 ft L
0.37211 mi.
4 Isum
$2,000.00
$9,000.00
0%
$9,000.00
25
mobilization
1 Isum
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
26
materials testing
1964.7 ft L
3.92944 inc of 500'
5 each
$200.00
$1,000.00
0%
$1,000.00
27
compaction testing
1964.7 ft L
3.92944 inc of 500'
5 each
$200.00
$1,000.00
0%
$1,000.00
28
CBR tests (1 every 0.1 mi. per road)
1964.7 ft L
3.92944 inc of 500'
5 each
$200.00
$1,000.00
0%
$1,000.00
29
stone depth inspections
1964.7 ft L
3.92944 inc of 500'
5 each
$200.00
$1,000.00
0%
$1,000.00
30
pavement inspections
1964.7 ft L
3.92944 inc of 500'
5 each
$200.00
$1,000.00
0%
$1,000.00
31
pipe and drainage video inspections
100 ft
$1.00
$100.00
0%
$100.00
32
VDOT surety (1 lane)
1964.7 ft L
0.37211 mi.
2 Lanes
$2,000.00
$14,884.24
0%
$14,884.24
33
VDOT maintenance fee (1 In rd, 1 yr)
1964.7 ft L
0.37211 mi.
2 Lanes
$150.00
$1,116.32
0%
$1,116.32
34
VDOT admin. Cost recovery fee(1 lane)
1964.7 ft L
0.37211 mi.
2 Lanes
$100.00
$994.21
0%
$994.21
$1,065,255.56
cost sum
$1,065,255.56
proj mgmt
$159,788.33
$159,788.33
contingency
$122,504.39
$122,504.39
Total
$1,347,550
$1,347,550
sers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013 -02 -01 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 2/7/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item Item
Number
No. Unit Unit Cost Cost
installed
compete
adjustment for infl cost remaining
aers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013-02-01 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 2/7/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item
Item
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Number
installed
% compete
adjustment for inf6
cost remaining
Brazos Court
road length 273.0 ft
1
aggregate base
5.0 in d
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
223.0 ton
$35.00
$7,803.25
0%
$7,803.25
2
blotted or prime &double seal
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
849.3 sy
$10.00
$8,493.33
0%
$8,493.33
3
asphalt base
0.0 in d
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
0.0 tons
$100.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
4
asphalt surface
1.5 in d
273.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
70.2 tons
$120.00
$8,427.51
0%
$8,427.51
5
curb CG -2
0.0 ft
$13.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
6
curb CG -6
546.0 ft
$15.00
$8,190.00
0%
$8,190.00
7
sidewalk, concrete (6)
546.0 ft
$17.00
$9,282.00
0%
$9,282.00
8
ramp CG -12
0 ft
$350.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
9
street name sign
0 each
$200.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
10
traffic control sign
0 each
$200.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
11
Street Landscape
11 Each
11 each
$150.00
$1,650.00
0%
$1,650.00
12
guardrail
0 ES @
3000
0.0 ft
$17.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
13
drop inlet or grate
4 each
$3,500.00
$14,000.00
0%
$14,000.00
14
standard manhole frame top (not inlet)
0 each
$500.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
15
manhole structure (per ft. rise)
0 ft
$450.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
16
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
42.0 ft
$40.00
$1,680.00
0%
$1,680.00
17
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
24.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC -1
214.0 ft
$50.00
$10,700.00
0%
$10,700.00
18
rip -rap, placed
1.0 ft d
20.0 ft L
10.0 ft W
15.0 ton
$60.00
$900.00
0%
$900.00
19
clear and grub (for wooded sites)
273.0 ft L
90.0 ft W
0.6 acre
$24,000.00
$13,537.19
0%
$13,537.19
20
grading (per cy for cut or import only)
0.0 cy fill
1729.0 cy cut
1729.0 cy
$13.00
$44,954.00
0%
$44,954.00
21
as -built drawings (1 k + price per 0.1 mi.)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
22
survey and layout (price per 0.1 mi.)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
23
mobilization
1 Isum
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
24
materials testing
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
25
compaction testing
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
26
CBR tests (1 every 0.1 mi. per road)
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
27
stone depth inspections
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
28
pavement inspections
273.0 ft L
0.546 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$320.00
0%
$320.00
29
pipe and drainage video inspections
100 ft
$1.00
$100.00
0%
$100.00
30
VDOT surety (1 lane)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
2 Lanes
$2,000.00
$2,068.18
0%
$2,068.18
31
VDOT maintenance fee (1 In rd, 1 yr)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
2 Lanes
$150.00
$155.11
0%
$155.11
32
VDOT admin. Cost recovery fee(1 lane)
273.0 ft L
0.0517 mi.
2 Lanes
$100.00
$353.41
0%
$353.41
$140,393.99
cost sum
$140,393.99
proj mgmt
$21,059.10
$21,059.10
contingency
$16,145.31
$16,145.31
Total
$177,600
$177,600
C:\ Users \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013-02-01 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 2/7/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item Item
Number
No. Unit Unit Cost Cost
installed
% compete
adjustment for infl; cost remaining
C:\ Users \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013 -02 -01 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 2/7/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item
Item
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
Number
installed
% compete
adjustment for inf6
cost remaining
Leon Lane
road length
50.0 ft
1
aggregate base
4.0 in d
50.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
32.7 ton
$35.00
$1,143.33
0%
$1,143.33
2
blotted or prime &double seal
50.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
155.6 sy
$10.00
$1,555.56
0%
$1,555.56
3
asphalt base
3.0 in d
50.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
25.7 tons
$100.00
$2,572.50
0%
$2,572.50
4
asphalt surface
1.5 in d
50.0 ft L
28.0 ft W
12.9 tons
$120.00
$1,543.50
0%
$1,543.50
5
curb CG -2
0.0 ft
$13.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
6
curb CG -6
100.0 ft
$15.00
$1,500.00
0%
$1,500.00
7
sidewalk, concrete (6)
100.0 ft
$17.00
$1,700.00
0%
$1,700.00
8
ramp CG -12
0 ft
$350.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
9
street name sign
0 each
$200.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
10
traffic control sign
0 each
$200.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
11
Street Landscape
0 Each
0 each
$150.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
12
guardrail
0 ES @
3000
0.0 ft
$17.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
13
drop inlet or grate
23 each
$3,500.00
$80,500.00
0%
$80,500.00
14
standard manhole frame top (not inlet)
3 each
$500.00
$1,500.00
0%
$1,500.00
15
manhole structure (per ft. rise)
33 ft
$450.00
$14,850.00
0%
$14,850.00
16
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
15.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC-1
0.0 ft
$35.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
17
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC-1
0.0 ft
$40.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
18
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
24.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 EC-1
0.0 ft
$50.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
19
pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
30.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
1 EC-1
0.0 ft
$65.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
20
rip -rap, placed
0.0 ft d
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 ton
$60.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
21
clear and grub (for wooded sites)
50.0 ft L
91.0 ft W
0.1 acre
$24,000.00
$2,506.89
0%
$2,506.89
22
grading (per cy for cut or import only)
0.0 cy fill
316.7 cy cut
316.7 cy
$13.00
$8,233.33
0%
$8,233.33
23
as -built drawings (1 k + price per 0.1 mi.)
50.0 ft L
0.00947 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
24
survey and layout (price per 0.1 mi.)
50.0 ft L
0.00947 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
25
mobilization
1 Isum
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
26
materials testing
50.0 ft L
0.1 inc of 500'
1 each
$200.00
$220.00
0%
$220.00
27
compaction testing
50.0 ft L
0.1 inc of 500'
1 each
$200.00
$220.00
0%
$220.00
28
CBR tests (1 every 0.1 mi. per road)
50.0 ft L
0.1 inc of 500'
1 each
$200.00
$220.00
0%
$220.00
29
stone depth inspections
50.0 ft L
0.1 inc of 500'
1 each
$200.00
$220.00
0%
$220.00
30
pavement inspections
50.0 ft L
0.1 inc of 500'
1 each
$200.00
$220.00
0%
$220.00
31
pipe and drainage video inspections
100 ft
$1.00
$100.00
0%
$100.00
32
VDOT surety (1 lane)
50.0 ft L
0.00947 mi.
2 Lanes
$2,000.00
$378.79
0%
$378.79
33
VDOT maintenance fee (1 In rd, 1 yr)
50.0 ft L
0.00947 mi.
2 Lanes
$150.00
$28.41
0%
$28.41
34
VDOT admin. Cost recovery fee(1 lane)
50.0 ft L
0.00947 mi.
2 Lanes
$100.00
$268.94
0%
$268.94
$126,481.25
cost sum
$126,481.25
proj mgmt
$18,972.19
$18,972.19
contingency
$14,545.34
$14,545.34
sers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013-02-01 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 2/7/2013
Foothills Crossing Phase II & II Subdivision
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB2012 -00057
Item Item
Number
No. Unit Unit Cost Cost
installed
Total $160,000
% compete
adjustment for infl; cost remaining
$160,000
sers \mkoslow \Documents \Current Reviews \SUB201200057 Foothills Crossing Phase 11 and 111\2013-02-01 -road bond estimate_SUB201200057 2/7/2013