HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300096 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2014-06-11�pF A
vt�r�1Q
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:
Old Trail Village, Block 113 & 3C
Plan preparer:
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc [914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville,
VA 22902, cmulligan @roudabush.com]
Owner or rep.:
JA -ZAN LLC [1150 Pepsi Place, Charlottesville VA 22901,
dave @oldtrailvillage.com]
Plan received date:
15 April 2014
Rev. 1 (WPO only)
29 May 2014
Road —see FILE: SUB201300096
Date of comments:
01 May 2014
Rev 1 (WPO)
11 June 2014 /Approved
Rev 3 (Road)
11 June 2014 /Approved
Reviewer:
John Anderson
A. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan (WP0201300052)
1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a road plan or site plan set.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. These plans indicate the off -site pond across Old Trail Drive will provide stormwater management.
This is fine as long as this plan gets runoff and discharges to that location. Please provide current
plans and profiles for the complete pipe run to the pond, indicating accurate current elevations of
ground, road, road substructure, and pond in the 2 and 10 year storms. This must be included fully
on this plan, to be bonded with this plan. The pipe run cannot decrease in size as indicated on
sheet 16. It appears the entire run should be 42" diameter. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
3. Please clarify and provide inlet computations for existing inlets that are receiving flow from this
development. Also, the tables do not appear to be clearly separating sump and on -grade inlets (see
VDOT LD -204). Please ensure all drainage inlets will capture the 10 year storm to carry runoff to
the stormwater management pond. Please clarify which pipes are existing (13 -16) The Storm
Sewer Design table appears to indicate capacity issues, for example: from Ex. 106 to Ex. 108,
from Ex. 114 to Ex. 116, and 7 other pipe sections. Please review and revise as necessary. (Rev.
1) Response on file. —see Note, below
Note— Storm sewer computations are not now found with SWM or ESC plans, but should be.
They are relevant to SWM. Old Trail Village block 1B -3C E &S design relies on revised As -built
drainage areas (DAs). Block 113-3C final pipe grades deviate from design (not by Roudabush,
Gale, & Assoc). This affects sediment basin design. There is a practical need to represent DAs
that contribute to the basin, yet I struggled to piece this information together. As with
computations, individual drainage areas appear on a sheet now removed from the ESC plan. The
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
drainage areas shown on Road Plan sheet 4 overstate the DA. The best plan view of existing
sediment basin DA is sheet 9 of a 13 sheet plan set titled Old Trail Village, Block 1, Phase B &
Block 3, Phase C, Final Site and Over Lot Grading Plan. This sheet was brought to a project
meeting May 15, but not included with the revised ESC plan. It appears that 4.44 Ac contribute to
the existing basin. The basin, at 18,897 c.f., is sized adequate for a 5.22 Ac. DA.
At this point, I suspend request for additional detail relating to inlets, capacities, calculations, etc,
and acknowledge VDOT's statement that block 113-3C road plan appears to comply with VDOT
standards and specifications, yet data in the storm sewer design table on sheet 7 of the Road Plan
show point -to -point incremental and accumulated CAs that, using values included in this table
alone, increase CA, point 106 to 108. That certain structures pre -exist does not mean they are
unaffected by development. Runoff from point 20 to point 106 is new, but is carried by existing
pipe. Old Trail Village is a large -scale development, and understanding can be tricky. I am not
insensitive to developmental needs. My hope is that in the future, comments will be taken as
simple request for information for purpose of comparison against limits and standards.
The stormwater management and mitigation plan is approved as noted. The stormwater
management approved with this plan is conveyance to the existing pond across Old Trail Drive.
B. Erosion Control Plan (WPO201300052)
1. Separate out the WPO plans. They cannot be approved as part of a road plan or site plan set.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Provide clear limits of disturbance. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
Provide perimeter controls for the initial stage of construction. The plan shows only inlet
protection. Inlet protection cannot be installed until the drainage system is installed. This is too
late. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed /response on file.
4. The pipe run to the pond must be included. Show all measures to install the pipe run to the pond.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. The plan note on sheet 9, note 1 on the sequence, and sheet 16, indicate an outfall into a sediment
basin. This sediment basin is not part of this erosion control plan as shown. It cannot be
considered, as it may be removed with other plans. All controls must be shown and detailed on the
plan, and within the limits of disturbance. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Update the narrative. This plan has not proposed any checkdams or basic (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
7. Revise the sequence of construction. Item #I is not valid. Item #7 appears to be a carryover from
prior plans. Item #2 is not possible, as many inlets have yet to be installed. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed; sequence of construction deleted.
C. Road plans (SUB201300096)
We a - awaiting a subdivision application and fee for the Ashlar Avenue road plans. This was
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
conveyed in an e -mail on 17 Apr 2014. Comment Addressed. —see Note, below
Note- VDOT letter of April 14, 2014 states no objection. Letter, however, makes mention
of Final plat requirements: 42' R.O.W. for Ashlar Ave (v. 39'), and sidewalk and street
tree easement since VDOT will not maintain street trees or pavers along Ashlar Avenue.
Also, VDOT states need for sidewalk and street trees maintenance agreement with
Albemarle County; the County likewise does not accept maintenance responsibility for
pavers or street trees. Given VDOT statement of no objection following their review of
plans titled Old Trail Village Ashlar Avenue Road Construction Plan, dated 7/1/12 with
revisions dated 9/27/13, 1/20/14, 2/11/14, 3/5/14, and 3/24/14 submitted by Roudabush,
Gale and Associates, Inc., and given design response to engineering review comments (13
August 2013 and 4 November 2013), Engineering approves road plan dated 24- Mar -14.
D. Site Plan (SDP201300044)
Comments as posted to County View system on 3/25/14. Previous comments from Michael Koslow
appear to be addressed with this submittal. However, there are still outstanding issues with WPO plan.
Remove the WPO and road plans. They cannot be approved as part of a site plan set.
Comment addressed.
E. Final Plat (SUB201400065)
A complete review of the final plat will be performed when road, site and WPO plans are approved,
and can be matched against the final plat. The following preliminary comments are provided;
1. Easements will need to be recorded for drainage through lots and to the off -site pond.
2. A maintenance agreement will need to be in place for the pond. A copy of a recorded document
should be provided to verify.
3. A Lickinghole Basin pro -rate share fee will be computed with final approval, and this will need to
be paid.
4. Road plans will need to be approved.
5. Bonds will need to be posted. Bond estimate can be requested when plans are approved. Forms
are available on the county website.
Review comments entered in County View (Alabemarle County project tracking system) on 5/28/14
1. Approved and bonded WPO required. WPO Application is under review (WP0201300052 —
requested changes).
2. Approved and bonded road plans required. Review of ACCD records appears to indicate road plans
are not approved.
3. AC Code Ch. 14 § 303.I. requires "a definite bearing and distance tie between not less than two (2)
permanent monuments on the exterior boundary of the property and further tie to existing street
intersection where possible and reasonably convenient." Furnish bearing and distance ties.
4. Public R/W, Claremont Lane, is listed as 55', but elsewhere (road plans/WPO applications) as 61'.
Please revise Claremont Lane public R/W as necessary.
5. The pro -rated share to Lickinghole Creek will need to be paid prior to plat approval. This will be
handled with the posting of bonds.
6. A stormwater management maintenance agreement will be needed. This can occur with the WPO
approval, but needs to happen prior to the final plat approval.
File: WP0201300052- SUB201300096 -Old Trail - 1B -3C- approv
( -nR
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
November 4, 2013
Mr. Michael Koslow
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB2013 -00096 Old Trail Village Block 1B & Block 3C
Dear Mr. Koslow:
We have reviewed the road plans entitled Old Trail Village Ashlar Avenue dated July 1, 2013
with revisions dated September 7, 2013 as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and
offer the following comments:
1. It would be helpful if the plan view of the development shown on Sheet 3 of 8 was shown
on a 30 scale so that the details could be seen better.
2. The entrance radii to blocks 1B and 3C are shown to be 21' to face of curb. The
minimum radius length is 25'.
3. The radius length at the intersection of Ashlar Avenue and Claremont Lane is shown to
be 12'. It is my understanding that this intersection will be reconstructed as part of the
punch list items for Claremont to correct the radii and to provide proper drainage. This
work should be coordinated with the Ashlar Avenue plans to ensure proper location of
the drop inlets and proper grades of the curb and gutter.
4. The labeling of the storm structures on Sheet 3 of 8 is not very clear and appears to be
inaccurate.
5. It is unclear where the profile labeled "Storm Profile Str#22- Str#20" is found in plan
view.
6. The profile labeled "Storm Profile Str#4 -16" does match the structures in plan view. It
appears that Structure 16 in profile is actually Structure 14 in plan view and that pipe 15
in profile is actually pipe 13. In addition, this profile references Brookley Drive and it is
my understanding that the road will not be called Ashlar Avenue.
7. On Sheet 3 of 8, Structure 10 is shown in plan view on the west side of the entrance road
to Block 1 B. It appears from road profile for Ashlar Avenue that Structure 10 is actually
on the north side of Ashlar Avenue to the west of the entrance road to Block 3C. This
needs to be confirmed and corrected as appropriate.
8. It appears that there needs to be drainage easement for a portion of storm sewer between
Structures 12 and 6. In addition, I did not see the profile for the storm sewer from
Structure 10 ( ?) to Structure 12 to Structure 6.
9. The open cut repairs for Claremont Lane should be "squared up" and extend through the
entire intersection of Claremont and Ashlar all the way to the entrance shown to Block
1 B off of Claremont Lane.
10. The typical sections shown on Sheet 5 of 8 should specify the station locations that each
applies to.
11. From the typical sections and from the plan view of the development, it appears that a
portion of the sidewalks will be located within the right -of -way and a portion will be
located outside of the right -of -way. As such, I suggest the right -of -way being moved to
1' behind the curb and gutter and an easement provided for the street trees and sidewalk.
In addition, the requirements Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual, section 4.I.5,
Non - compliant Sidewalks, must be met.
12. All street trees need to be located at least 30' from the end of radii as shown in Appendix
B(1) of the Road Design Manual.
13. The storm sewer profiles need to be corrected before an adequate review of the
calculations can be performed.
14. The pavement design calculations were not provided to me with this submittal.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
i"
,. `IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Old Trail Village Blocks 1B & 3C — Final SUB201300096
Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale and Associates Inc. [fax 434 - 296 -52201
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties I (Block 1)
Craig Enterprises, Inc. (Block 3B)
Ja -Zan LLC (Block 3C)
Plan received date: 9 July 2013
(Rev1)
21 October 2013
Date of comments:
13 August 2013
(Rev])
4 November 2013
Reviewer:
Michael Koslow
Review coordinator:
Michael Koslow
The second road plan and comps submittal (SUB201300096) submitted 15 October 2013 has
received Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist
items for approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion & Sediment Control,
Mitigation, or Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for
road plan approval:
A. Application Information
1) Per ZMA2004 -00024 proffer #7, please submit an overlot grading plan showing
existing and proposed grading for this project. This could coincide with a road plan or
site plan submittal but is needed for proposed subdivision.
(Rev]) No additional exhibits were received with this submittal other than the plans and
comment response letter. If intent is to utilize the Grading Plan sheet from the site plan
(sheet 5) as Overlot Grading Plan, please add this to the title of the sheet for that site plan
set.
2) Due to greater than 10,000 sft of disturbance proposed, this plan and associated
final site plan (SDP2013- 00044) will require an approved WPO plan including erosion
& sediment control and stormwater management. The county acknowledges submittal
of the erosion & sediment control plan (WP02013- 00052). An existing facility which
includes capacity to treat and detain runoff from the site could meet stormwater
management requirements. A thorough check of existing enclosed drainage outfalls
from the site is recommended. It is the county's understanding that this site no longer
drains to the Old Ballard Field pond.
(Rev]) This plan needs to standalone based on as -built conditions. As it has become
evident that the built environment does not mirror previously approved and bonded plans,
a survey of any proposed treatment and detention structure or revised WPO plans which
address MS -19 component of ESC and water quantity and quality management is
required prior for road plan approval.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
3) After WPO plan approval but prior to grading permit issuance, a pro -rated share
payment to Lickinghole Basin will be required.
(Rev]) Comment has been acknowledged.
4) Cover of final version of road plans will need to be signed, stamped, and dated by
a professional engineer.
(Rev]) Comment has been acknowledged.
C. Proposed Plan View Information
2) It appears that an easement for proposed sanitary sewer might be needed as it
crosses Claremont Drive. Will defer to ACSA regarding this comment.
(Rev]) Please indicate where utility easement has been proposed for sanitary sewer
crossing under Claremont Drive as shown on sheet 3, provide an easement, or provide a
quit claim deed. Will defer to VDOT regarding this issue.
5) Recommend showing a 20' wide easement for existing drainage pipe flowing
under proposed Lot 23. This will be a requirement for the final plat as a condition of
preliminary plat (SUB2012- 00104) approval for block 1B.
(Rev]) Please indicate on plans by deed book and page number a 20' wide easement for
existing drainage pipe flowing under proposed Lot 23 if it was previously recorded.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
8) Please propose traffic control signs (no parking signs on Brookley Drive if this is
proposed condition consistent with proposed final site plans, stop signs, street name
signs at intersections).
(Rev]) Comment remains.
F. Street Details
1) Please clarify intent of "Typical Pavement and Curb Section Private" detail on
sheet 5. It appears to be for the alley proposed to serve lots 14 -20. However, the scaled
distance from the front of the rolltop curb to the other curb line (as depicted in plan view
on sheet 4) is only 22' while the detail indicates 24'. Also, please label proposed private
R/W for this alley and/or indicate an access easement.
(Rev]) As currently proposed with this submittal, it appears that a 9' wide one -way road
is proposed to serve Lots 14 -20. A minimum width of 12' is required for this proposed
one way access alley.
G. Drainage Profiles
1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drains associated with Brookley
Drive and the alley which appears to be proposed to serve lots 14 -20.
(Rev]) Please match proposed drainage with site plan. For example, proposed pipe
#15 as shown on sheet 5 of the site plan appears to be labeled as proposed pipe #13 as
shown on sheet 3 of road plan. Will review drainage profiles after this is clarified.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
The Albemarle County Community Development Department engineering section distributes road
plan submittals to our planning staff, and to VDOT as a courtesy. We do not distribute or
coordinate review with other departments or agencies like Fire & Rescue, Parks and Recreation,
ACSA, RWSA, etc. This must be coordinated by the owner or applicant. Approval
documentation must be provided from all applicable departments and agencies prior to final road
plan approval.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow @albemarle.ora
to schedule an appointment.
i"
,. `IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Old Trail Village Blocks 1B & 3C — Final SUB201300096
Plan preparer: Roudabush, Gale and Associates Inc. [fax 434 - 296 -52201
Owner or rep.: March Mountain Properties I (Block 1)
Craig Enterprises, Inc. (Block 3B)
Ja -Zan LLC (Block 3C)
Plan received date: 9 July 2013
Date of comments: 13 August 2013
Reviewer: Michael Koslow
Review coordinator: Michael Koslow
The first road plan and comps submittal (SUB201300096) submitted 8 July 2013 has received
Engineering Review and does not appear to meet Albemarle County minimum checklist items for
approval. This review does not include a review of Erosion & Sediment Control, Mitigation, or
Stormwater Management. Please adequately address the following comments for road plan
approval:
A. Application Information
1) Per ZMA2004 -00024 proffer #7, please submit an overlot grading plan showing
existing and proposed grading for this project. This could coincide with a road plan or
site plan submittal but is needed for proposed subdivision.
2) Due to greater than 10,000 sft of disturbance proposed, this plan and associated
final site plan (SDP2013- 00044) will require an approved WPO plan including erosion
& sediment control and stormwater management. The county acknowledges submittal
of the erosion & sediment control plan (WP02013- 00052). An existing facility which
includes capacity to treat and detain runoff from the site could meet stormwater
management requirements. A thorough check of existing enclosed drainage outfalls
from the site is recommended. It is the county's understanding that this site no longer
drains to the Old Ballard Field pond.
3) After WPO plan approval but prior to grading permit issuance, a pro -rated share
payment to Lickinghole Basin will be required.
4) Cover of final version of road plans will need to be signed, stamped, and dated by
a professional engineer.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
B. Existing Conditions Information
1) Please include the date the topographic information was verified by designer. All
topography should be at least visually field verified by the designer with the last year.
C. Proposed Plan View Information
1) It appears that sidewalk maintenance easements could be necessary to maintain a
minimum of 5' wide sidewalk continuity along proposed NE & SE corners of Old Trail
Drive and Brookley Drive.
2) It appears that an easement for proposed sanitary sewer might be needed as it
crosses Claremont Drive. Will defer to ACSA regarding this comment.
3) Please include entrance detail for two entrances proposed on Brookley Drive. It
appears CG -11 curb transitions are appropriate for the proposed mixed use parcels.
4) Please indicate sight distance lines at Brookley Drive and Claremont Lane and for
each proposed entrance on to Brookley Drive. Sight distance easements might be
needed.
5) Recommend showing a 20' wide easement for existing drainage pipe flowing
under proposed Lot 23. This will be a requirement for the final plat as a condition of
preliminary plat (SUB2012- 00104) approval for block 1B.
6) Please indicate stationing for Brookley Drive at a maximum interval of 50'.
7) Please label all proposed intersection curb types, curb ramp types, and radii.
8) Please propose traffic control signs (no parking signs on Brookley Drive if this is
proposed condition consistent with proposed final site plans, stop signs, street name
signs at intersections).
D. Plan Detail Information
1) Please specify 4" stone base for all proposed sidewalks including variable width
sidewalks proposed on road typical sections on sheet 7.
2) Please update road name for Brookley Drive on Road Classification Schedule on
sheet 5 (this name indicates Brookley Road).
3) Please propose a pavement design for Brookley Drive which supports proposed
traffic loadings per 2009 VDOT Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary
Roads in Virginia or equivalent.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
E. Street Profiles
1) Please include existing ground elevations at every 50' on profile.
2) Please indicate cross drains with VDOT designations (CD -1,2) at every cut and
fill transition.
3) Please label the intersecting stations for Old Trail Drive and Claremont Drive in
profile view.
F. Street Details
1) Please clarify intent of "Typical Pavement and Curb Section Private" detail on
sheet 5. It appears to be for the alley proposed to serve lots 14 -20. However, the scaled
distance from the front of the rolltop curb to the other curb line (as depicted in plan view
on sheet 4) is only 22' while the detail indicates 24'. Also, please label proposed private
R/W for this alley and/or indicate an access easement.
G. Drainage Profiles
1) Please provide drainage profiles for all proposed drains associated with Brookley
Drive and the alley which appears to be proposed to serve lots 14 -20.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review
comments. Please contact Michael Koslow at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3297 or email mkoslow @albemarle.org
to schedule an appointment.
R —
P` .q � t�1 `•�P
p� ■■L�i^(J
e , •�'Y IP\
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virginia 22701 -3819
Gregory A. Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
August 9, 2013
Mr. Michael Koslow
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB2013 -00096 Old Trail Village Block 1B & Block 3C
Dear Mr. Koslow:
We have reviewed the Old Trail Village Brookley Drive Road Construction Plan dated July 1,
2013 as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. The radii the entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be shown on the plan.
2. The CG -12's need to be labeled as such.
3. The type of curb and gutter along Brookely Drive needs to be labeled.
4. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be CG -11 entrances.
5. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be aligned with each other. There appears to
be a slight offset.
6. The midblock pedestrian crossing should be removed.
7. The entrances to Blocks 1B and 3C need to be moved as far as possible from the
roundabout. It appears to me that the entrances could be located approximately where the
midblock pedestrian crossing is currently shown or at least shifted to the east once the
midblock crossing is removed.
8. The storm sewer crossings should be located perpendicularly to the streets they are
crossing.
9. The profile for Brookley Road indicates that the grade of the storm sewer between
structures 4 and 6 is 0.47% while the drainage calculations indicate a grade of 0.54 %.
This difference is not likely to change the adequacy of the storm sewer, but the grades
should be consistent.
10. Several storm sewer profiles were not included in these plans. Storm sewer sections not
provided include sections 8 -6, 14 -4, 4 -2, 2 -Ex. 114, and 16 -Ex. 202.
11. It appears that it is proposed to not allow parking on Brookley Drive, however, typical
sections are provide for both parking and no parking sections of Brookley Drive. To
avoid confusion, one of the typical sections should be removed.
12. There needs to be at least 1' of right -of -way beyond the sidewalk on the typical section of
Brookley Drive (No Parking). The planting strips shown on this detail could be reduced
from 8' to as low as 6' to accommodate this requirement.
13. The typical section for Brookley Drive (No Parking) indicates that the distance from the
centerline to the right -of -way is 37'. This should be 27' based on the section provided.
14. There are details for rolltop curb and transitions from CG -6 to rolltop included in the
plans. If rolltop is proposed, the locations should be indicated on the plans, if not, the
details should be removed to avoid confusion.
15. The street trees shown along Claremont Drive need to be located at least 30' from the end
of radius as shown in Appendix B(1) of the Road Design Manual.
16. Profiles of the sight lines need to be provided to ensure that the vertical curve of
Brookley Drive does not impact the sight distance.
17. The sight line to the left for the entrance to Block 1B is shown to the incorrect lane of the
roundabout.
18. The pavement design calculation needs to be provided for review.
19. More detail is needed showing the transition from the roundabout to the typical section of
Brookley Drive.
If additional information is needed concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy ustin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Subdivision Name, Old Trail Village - Ashlar Ave (block 1 13-3C)
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB201300096
Item # Item
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
installed
% compete cost remaining
Road Name - Ashlar Ave
station 11 +25 - 13 +66 ( ±)
road length
241.0 ft
1 (Ashlar Ave.) aggregate base
8.0 in d
354.4 ft L
20.0 ft W
330.8 ton
$35.00
$11,577.07
0%
$11,577.07
2 (PVT) aggregate base
6.0 in d
1030.8 ft L
20.0 ft W
721.5 ton
$35.00
$25,253.38
0%
$25,253.38
3 blotted or prime &double seal
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 sy
$10.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
4 (Ashlar Ave.) asphalt base
4.0 in d
354.4 ft L
20.0 ft W
173.7 tons
$100.00
$17,365.60
0%
$17,365.60
5 (PVT) asphalt base
3.0 in d
1030.8 ft L
20.0 ft W
378.8 tons
$100.00
$37,880.06
0%
$37,880.06
6 asphalt surface
1.5 in d
1385.0 ft L
20.0 ft W
254.5 tons
$120.00
$30,539.25
0%
$30,539.25
7 2" asphalt overlay -ref. x- hatch, sheet 3
2.0 in d
150.0 ft L
30.0 ft W APPROX
55.1 tons
$120.00
$6,615.00
0%
$6,615.00
8 curb CG -2 [incl south parking roll -top; ref. site plan]
600.0 ft
$13.00
$7,800.00
0%
$7,800.00
9 curb CG -6
720.0 ft
$15.00
$10,800.00
0%
$10,800.00
10 sidewalk, concrete (5')
1320.0 ft
$17.00
$22,440.00
0%
$22,440.00
11 sidewalk, brick pavers, SF units (1,050 LF,
6' -w)
6300.0 SF
$15.00
$94,500.00
0%
$94,500.00
12 ramp CG -12
8 ft
$350.00
$2,800.00
0%
$2,800.00
13 bumper blocks (note, below)
6 each
$25.95
$155.70
0%
$155.70
14 street name sign
3 each
$200.00
$600.00
0%
$600.00
15 traffic control sign
20 each
$200.00
$4,000.00
0%
$4,000.00
16 Street Landscape
0 Each
25 each
$150.00
$3,750.00
0%
$3,750.00
17 guardrail
4 ES @
0
0.0 ft
$17.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
18 drop inlet or grate
13 each
$3,500.00
$45,500.00
0%
$45,500.00
19 standard manhole frame top (not inlet)
1 each
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
20 manhole structure (per ft. rise)
5 ft
$450.00
$2,394.00
0%
$2,394.00
21 pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
15.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 ECA
697.0 ft
$35.00
$24,395.00
0%
$24,395.00
22 pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
24.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 ECA
0.0 ft
$50.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
23 pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 ECA
0.0 ft
$40.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
24 pipe, rcp, cmp (15 to 48 ")
18.0 in d
0 ES -1,2
0 ECA
0.0 ft
$40.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
25 rip -rap, placed
2.0 ft d
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 ton
$60.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
26 matting, EC -2 or 3
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 sy
$2.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
27 clear and grub (for wooded sites)
0.0 ft L
0.0 ft W
0.0 acre
$24,000.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
28 cut grading
0.0 cy
$4.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
29 fill grading
0.0 cy
$9.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
30 as -built drawings (1 k + price per 0.1 mi.)
241.0 ft L
0.04564 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
31 survey and layout (price per 0.1 mi.)
241.0 ft L
0.04564 mi.
1 Isum
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
0%
$3,000.00
32 mobilization
1 Isum
$500.00
$500.00
0%
$500.00
33 materials testing
241.0 ft L
0.482 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$300.00
0%
$300.00
34 compaction testing
241.0 ft L
0.482 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$300.00
0%
$300.00
35 CBR tests (1 every 0.1 mi. per road)
241.0 ft L
0.482 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$300.00
0%
$300.00
36 stone depth inspections
241.0 ft L
0.482 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$300.00
0%
$300.00
37 pavement inspections
241.0 ft L
0.482 inc of 500'
2 each
$200.00
$300.00
0%
$300.00
38 pipe and drainage video inspections
0 ft
$1.00
$0.00
0%
$0.00
39 VDOT surety (1 lane)
241.0 ft L
0.04564 mi.
2 Lanes
$2,000.00
$1,825.76
0%
$1,825.76
C:\ Users \janderson2 \Documents \PROJ comments \bonds \RP_bond_est_2June2013 -OT Village 1 b- 3c- Ashlar Ave - 063014 - b.xlsx 6/30/2014
Subdivision Name, Old Trail Village - Ashlar Ave (block 1 13-3C)
Road and Infrastructure Construction Bond Estimate (roads, site work, storm sewer)
Plan # SUB201300096
Item # Item
Road Name - Ashlar Ave
40 VDOT maintenance fee (1 In rd, 1 yr) 241.0 ft L 0.04564 mi.
41 VDOT admin. Cost recovery fee(1 lane) 241.0 ft L 0.04564 mi.
No. Unit
Unit Cost
Cost
installed
% compete cost remaining
2 Lanes
$150.00
$136.93
0% $136.93
2 Lanes
$100.00
$341.29
0% $341.29
cost sum
$359,169.03
$359,169.03
proj mgmt
$53,875.35
$53,875.35
contingency
$41,304.44
$41,304.44
Total
$454,350
$454,350
C:\ Users \janderson2 \Documents \PROJ comments \bonds \RP_bond _ est_2June2013 -OT Village 1 b- 3c- Ashlar Ave - 063014 - b.xlsx 6/30/2014