HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400066 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2014-10-02�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:
Plan preparer:
Owner or rep.:
Plan received date:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
(last)
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
(last)
Reviewer:
Briarwood Commercial Road Plan, & Road Plan WPO
Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins -en ing eering com]
Wendell Wood and Nena Harrell [ulcwww @embargmail.com]
Woodbrier Associates L [P. O. Box 5548, Charlottesville VA 22905]
15 April 2014 [WPO], 16 April 2014 [Road]
12 June 2014 [Road], 16 June 2014 [WPO /SWM &ESC]
22 July 2014 [Road], 24 July 2014 [WPO /SWM &ESC]
8 August 2014
2 October 2014
22 May 2014
15 July 2014
4 August 2014
18 August 2014
2 October 2014
John Anderson
Road plans submitted October 2, 2014 are approved. VDOT (2- Oct -14 approval; 9/11/14 plan set), ACSA,
ACCD Planning Div, and ACF &R have approved (prior) versions of revised road plans. Agency comments are
available in CountyView.
Forms and instructions to request the Subdivision Ordinance bond amount can be found on the Community
Development Department website shown below. You may contact Ana Kilmer (Albemarle County Department of
Community Development) at ext. 3246 for further information on bonding procedures and maintenance agreements.
htW: / /www.albemarle.org/upload/ images /forms_ center / departments /Community Development/forms/bonds/Bond R
eguest_to Establish a Bond.pdf
Once subdivision ordinance (roads, drainage, etc) bond has been posted, you may request a follow -up to
(WP0201300072 /Mass Grade) 2 -Sep 2014 preconstruction meeting, if helpful. This project is under construction.
Please note roads must be built or bonded prior to final plat approval. As a reminder, please ensure retaining wall
geotechnical plans dated 10/1/14 (road plan sheets 17/18) are the design submitted to ACCD Building Permits.
I appreciate your patience and support. Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you.
John, ext. 3069
O•. � `� V.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
October 2, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2014 -00066 Briarwood Commercial Road Plan
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plan for the Briarwood Commercial Lots dated 4115/14 with
revisions dated 6/12/14, 712114, 7122114, 7129114, $1$114, 8127114, and 9)111114 as submitted by
Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
1. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
2. Prior to road improvements beginning with the Route 29 right -of -way, a Land Use Permit
will be required. The Maintenance of Traffic Plan (MOT Plan) will need to be approved
by the Northwest Region Operations (NWRO) as part of the Land Use Permit issuance.
3. Please note that per the allowable work hour policy of the Culpeper District, construction
work along Route 29 that includes a lane closure will need to occur during night hours.
More specifically, between 10 PM and 6 AM Monday through Friday morning, between
11 PM and 8 AM (Saturday morning) on Friday, between 10 PM and 9 AM (Sunday
morning) on Saturday, and between 8 PM and 6 AM (Monday morning) on Sunday.
4. Prior to commencement of roadway improvement construction on Briarwood Drive and
Route 29, a pre - construction meeting with VDOT will need to be held. This office needs
to be contacted at least 48 hours prior to this meeting to confirm schedule availability.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
At-
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
R
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
September 2, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB -2014 -00066 Briarwood Commercial Lots Road Plan
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plan for the Briarwood commercial lots dated 4.115 ' 14 with revisions
dated 6/11,14, 7/2i 14, 7122114, 7129/14, 8/8/14, and 8.27/ 14 and offer the following comments:
I . The road edge delineators shown are not the type that should be used for the right turn
lane to be constructed on Briarwood Drive. Tubular delineators in accordance with the
MUTCD should be used and shown as a detail on the plans.
2. The note concerning the timing of the construction of the additional Ieft turn lane from
Route 29 north needs to be revised. Rather than timing the construction of the turn lane
entirely on the development of the second commercial lot, the note should indicate that if
queue and volume warrants for the additional lane are met, the turn lane will be
constructed prior to the development of the second commercial lot.
3. The following comments pertain to the Pavement Design Table:
a. Per note 1 of the 2014 Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary
Roads, if 4 ! Z inches or more of any combination of Asphalt Concrete layers
(surface, intermediate, and base) is called for on top of a subbase layer, the
thickness equivalency value of 2.25 shall be used for the asphalt concrete layers.
This will bring the Dp closer to the DR in the Pavement Design Table.
b. For Briarwood Drive, if 8" of 21 B subbase is used rather than 6 ", it appears that
the De is calculated to be 22.81. This change to the road design should be made.
c. I would recommend that thickness of the SM -9.5 be increased to at least 2" and
the thickness of the BM -25 be increased to at least 5" for Boulderview
Drive/Road and for Elm Tree Court. This would result in a De of 20.55 which is
much closer to the DR of 22.87 and 22.74 respectively.
d. Note, the final pavement design will need to be based on new CBRs in the areas
of road construction.
4. Additional information is need for the drainage structures to be relocated in the Route 29
median. At a minimum, the existing/proposed structure inverts and the pipe diameters
need to be added to the plan. In addition, how will the existing inlet approximately 400
feet south of the crossover be abandoned?
5. The storm sewer at the Route 29 crossover at Briarwood Drive should be extended on the
same alignment. The drop inlet should be relocated to the end of the extended storm
sewer and the median graded to ensure positive drainage. This would eliminate the need
for a new structure to be placed in the left turn lane.
6. The above comments should not impact the grading of the proposed gas station site or
Boulderview Road. VDOT has no objection for a grading permit for the gas station site.
No grading within public right -of -way should occur until a Land Use Permit from this
office has been obtained.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
l�
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�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:
Briarwood Commercial Road Plan, & Road Plan WPO
Plan preparer:
Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.:
Wendell Wood and Nena Harrell [ulcwww @embargmail.com]
Woodbrier Associates L [P. O. Box 5548, Charlottesville VA 22905]
Plan received date:
15 April 2014 [WPO], 16 April 2014 [Road]
(Rev. 1)
12 June 2014 [Road], 16 June 2014 [WPO /SWM &ESC]
(Rev. 2)
22 July 2014 [Road], 24 July 2014 [WPO /SWM &ESC]
Date of comments:
22 May 2014
(Rev. 1)
15 July 2014
(Rev. 2)
4 August 2014
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Please contact reviewer to schedule a meeting to discuss comments, if helpful.
A. Road plan (SUB201400066)
1. Provide the traffic study approved by VDOT. (Rev. 1) TIA lends question: Briarwood
Commercial Development TIA (Table 4.2 –ITE Trip Generation) by Davenport (Project # 13 -338,
11/20/13, rev. 3/7/14) shows 24 -hr two -way volume trip generation for Areas A -B -C as 10,896.
Sheet 6 displays this data (Elm Tree Court) using a double -end arrow and label: 5,448 VPD. TIA
shows 24 -hour two -way volume trip generation for Areas D -E -F as 11,324. Sheet 6 displays this
data (Road `A') as 5,662 VPD. Revise labels to show that 10,896 and 11,324 VPD are TIA 2 -way
estimates. The figures 5,448 and 5.662 may be mistaken as total 2 -way estimates, which they are
not. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
2. Remove entrances from the road plans. These must be approved with site plans. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
3. Grading off -site for culvert drainage system N of Elm Tree Court requires easement, or remove.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed. [Jun -]1 letter: "Existing grading easement allows for disturbance
10' into the existing lot. No lot disturbance occurs outside of this area. "]
4. Grading on the townhouse lots west of Road `A' cannot be approved as a road plan. This must be
on a site plan. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed —Bonds will need to be signed by the owners of all
properties on which construction takes place, or legal easements will be needed [ref – Albemarle
County Design Standards Manual [ ACDSM], 8. Grading; C. Off -site work]. [Jun -]1 letter:
"Townhouse grading approved under SDP - 2010 -84 and is an existing condition for this road plan.
Proposed grading ties into the approved grading as shown on Sheet 4 "].
5. Subdivision Ordinance 14.422.D. requires 6' planting strips. Plans show 3' (sheet 6). (Rev. 1)
Ref. Planning Division comments dated July 3, 2014, comment #4—"A waiver request [for 3'
wide planting strips] shall be taken to the Planning Commission for consideration."
6. Retaining Walls: Please provide specific, geotechnical engineering details for all retaining walls.
Proposed walls 1, 2, and 3 each have sections that equal or exceed 6' in height. Proposed Wall 3
located 25 -ft from residential lot lines with 2:1 slopes falling 30 -ft at one point to top of wall
elevation of 440' and further 8' drop to sidewalk, falling elsewhere 2:1 16 -ft to top of wall
elevation of 444' with further 16' drop to concrete sidewalk presents inherent danger. (Rev. 1)
Comment not addressed. [See ACDSM 8.B.2.b. /c.] Please provide specific, geotechnical
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 7
engineering details for all retaining walls, including Redi -rock Ledgestone gravity wall system.
Revise handrail /fence post detail, sheet 5: show a zero (0 %) slope extending at least 24" behind
wall (railing post may not coincide with drainage swale low- point); show drainage swale in every
view of Wall #3 —D, E, F, G, H, I. Consider, show, and detail sub - surface drainage features.
Label and dimension aggregate prism installed immediately behind SRW blocks in handrail /fence
post detail. Specify drainage at foundation (or higher levels) as necessary to ensure areas
immediately behind each wall have adequate drainage. Do not show unbroken 2:1 slope behind
wall #3, but in each section view (D -I), break slope with drainage swale located at least 24" behind
wall. Furnish qualified Engineer's report that life cycles and surcharge of plantings shown in
schematic and table views on sheet 5 and 15, and on sheet 2 of (SDP201300035) Briarwood Site
Plan Amendment #2, Briarwood Phases IA -A, IB -1, 4 -8, received 23 -June 14, will not
compromise integrity of walls or geogrid, if geogrid is used. Avoid planting within drip -line
distance of walls. A 314 sf canopy tree, for example, should not be planted within 10 -ft of walls.
Explanatory note that "final structure wall design to be submitted with final structural engineering
plans " does not meet review requirements. Retaining wall design is a precondition to approval of
road plan, mitigation plan [SDP201300035], and site plan [SDP201400047] since integral to
infrastructure of the site (Road `A'). (Rev. 2) Partially addressed – discussed these items with
Scott Collins, Jul -31, or Adam Long, Aug -1. With submittal of Redi -rock Retaining Wall design
on 7/21 (d. 7/14/14): i) revise handrail consistent with location in top - course of Redi -rock wall; ii)
landscaping between Walls 1 and 2 should prevent trespass between walls: no objection if
eliminate lower wall (Wall 2) handrail if required to meet ARB /other departmental requirements;
iii) restore backslope grade shown in Wall 3 profile views (D,E,F,G,H,I) of earlier submittal
(Geotechnical design engineer, M. Circeo, maintains drainage swale unnecessary); iv) revise
proposed tree locations, Wall 3, to ensure min setback – requirement/formula outlined as item #3,
7/23/14 correspondence, Margaret Maliszewski, ACCD, to Miller Cupp Associates Architects,
P.C. / Collins Engineering; and, v) transfer all information from Circeo design titled Redirock
Retaining Walls, Briarwood Commercial, Albemarle County, Virginia, to road plans (2 -3 new
sheets). Transfer without revision, addition, or deletion, except by or through Michael R. Circeo.
7. Delete Notes 1 and 2, sheet 5. These notes are invalid. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed;
sheet 5 segmented retaining wall (SRW) and geogrid reinforcement details removed. New sheet
5 Wall Cross - sections and Details are inadequate. Ref. ACDSM, 8.B.2.c (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed –see 6, above.
8. Provide handrail elements on all walls. Given proposed wall heights, a typical detail is
insufficient. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Handrail shown for Wall #3, only (see
sections D -I, sheet 5). No railing shown for sections of Wall #1 or 2 (sections A, B, C, sheet 5).
Furnish safety railing for all proposed wall sections 4' or higher. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
Also, see comment #6, above.
9. Show managed slopes on Wall Number 3 detail –sheet 5. Ref. AC Code Ch. 18 §30.7, Steep
Slopes Overlay District, and §30.7.5, Design Standards for requirements pertaining to managed
slope retaining wall design requirements, or limits. Revise designs accordingly. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
10. 125' and 140' Radius curves on Road `A' near Briarwood Drive should be revised to 198' Radius,
minimum, to avoid VDOT super - elevation requirements (Ref. VDOT Road Design Manual,
Geometric Design Standards for Urban Local Street System [GS -8]; Road and Bridge Standards,
Sec. 800, Transition Curves, 803.23, Summary of Standard TC -5.11 ULS [Urban Low Speed]
Design Factors, Minimum Radii for Designs Utilizing -2% Super - elevation Normal Pavement
Crown). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Furnish street sign, NW corner of intersection of Camelot and Briarwood Drive –sheet 3. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
12. Island at Intersection Road `B' and U.S. Rte. 29 SBL and median islands on Briarwood Drive
should have 3' R, Minimum. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
13. Intersection of Road `B' and Road `A' must provide a 40' landing with slope < 4 %. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
14. Elm Tree Court profile (sheet 9) note states `End road construction at Sta. 11 +75 with temporary
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 7
turn- around, see plans for details.' Furnish design details for temporary turn- around. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
15. Sheet 6 — Typical Neighborhood Street Section references Road A, B, and C. Where is Road `C'?
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Revise sheet 8 label to read "Underground detention facility #1 proposed under WPO- 2014 -30.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
17. Sheet 6 presents 13 drainage or roadway details. Details are unreadable. Enlarge details to the
point information is legible, or remove standard VDOT details. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
18. Sheet 7 presents 14 utility details. Details are unreadable. Enlarge details to the point that
information is readable. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
19. Str -8 (type, DI -7) — the DA that lies between the 0.23 Ac. DA for Str -8 and the 0.53 Ac. DA for
Str -6 should be added to the 0.23 Ac. DA for Str -8. Capacity- spread calculations should be
revised (Drop Inlet table, sheet 12). (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed; 10 -yr design storm
table, sheet 14, lacks column headings - please provide column headings. (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed.
20. Str -24 (type, DI -7) — Drop Inlet table, sheet 12, shows that under 6.5 in/hr conditions, orifice flow
at Str -24 will lead to depth above grate = 6.8 in (0.56'). Rim elevation of Str -24 is 409.52'. Under
6.5 in/hr conditions, storm runoff would follow the 410' contour into US 29 and travel north in
both south and northbound lanes. Under these conditions, plans show storm runoff at Str -24 >
410' that, for periods of time, evades detention with potential to impact all arterial travel lanes at
the intersection of U.S. Rte. 29 and Briarwood Drive. Str -24 appears inadequate. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
21. VDOT approval is required. Comments are attached. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
22. For Road `A', Road `B', Briarwood Drive, each entrance and intersection, "all design elements are
expected to be to VDOT standards, including curb, gutter, pavement, striping, etc, unless an
alternative is approved." {Design Manual, sec. 7 1. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
NEW
23. Increase radius of curve at NE corner of Road `A' -Road `B' intersection to 30 -ft, Min, to allow
longer vehicles to clear opposing traffic when turning [Ref. AASHTO/Minimum Turning Paths of
Design Vehicles —link: http: / /design transportation.org/ Documents /TumRadii,GreenBook2004.pdf ]
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
24. Provide stationing for Briarwood Drive to aide design, review, bond estimate, bond reduction,
inspection, and maintenance: begin with station 10 +00 at CL intersection Briarwood Drive and
Elm Tree Court. In addition, furnish: CL profile for Briarwood Drive; typical cross sections at
these points: tip of median near Rte. 29; widest and narrowest widths east of Road `A'; and
between Road `A' and Elm Tree Court. Indicate drainage patterns. Show symmetrical transition
of pavement at intersection with existing street (Rte. 29) [18- 32.6.2.f]. (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed.
25. Provide storm drain inlets to capture uncollected runoff from Briarwood Drive; these inlets should
be located as close to Rte. 29 as possible, included with median design. To this end, furnish inlets
along each side of the proposed median on Briarwood Drive, just prior to Rte. 29. Propose
structures within the median structure, on each side. V4" per ft. crown for the 3 lanes into the
subdivision and the 4 lanes out should transition smoothly to U.S. Rte 29, existing EP. (Rev. 2)
Comment addressed.
26. Inlet structures Ex -38 and Ex -37, sheet 4: One or the other will be relocated; please indicate which.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
27. Sheet 5: for Wall sections A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, show road station that corresponds with each
section ( Briarwood Drive, or Road `A'). There is no clear reference to locate these sections.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
28. Add County `General Construction Notes for Streets' to plans —ref. ACDSM. (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed.
29. Supplement Retaining Wall Notes, to include, at a minimum: i) The Owner shall engage inspection
and testing services (quality control) during construction to ensure project design requirements are
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 7
met; the lack of quality control by the owner does not relieve the contractor of these requirements;
ii) quality control shall include but not be limited to: foundation soil inspection, verification of
geotechnical design parameters, and verification that construction is in general compliance with the
design drawings; iii) only qualified and experienced technicians shall perform testing and
inspections services. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
30. VDOT approval is required for improvements to Briarwood Drive and the new intersection design
and location. (Rev. 2) Comment acknowledged.
B. Stormwater Management Plan -Road plan WPO (WP0201300072)
1. Pre - development is all wooded, without impervious areas. Use 1 -2% existing impervious area
to calculate %RR, sheet 4. Revise 9% pre - development impervious to 1 -2 %. I(post) will
change. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Treatment must be provided for all improvements (see also WP0201400030). (Rev. 1) VDOT
restrictions on use of Filterra units within public RW set practical limits on extent of water quality
treatment. Nevertheless, collection, rather than release of runoff from expanded width of
Briarwood Drive is possible with storm inlets positioned within new proposed median close to
U.S. 29 ( #25, above). (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
3. Sheet 2 and 3 existing (pre - development) topography should match. Eliminate post - development
contours associated with roadway construction from pre - development view (sheet 4). (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
4. Do not show the proposed three line SWM underground detention system as pre - development;
WP0201300018 approved a two -line system which was never constructed while WP0201300072 made
application for a three line system. Pre - development condition includes a sediment basin that accepts runoff
from a portion of Briarwood Drive. Underground storage is not the pre - developed condition (ref sheet 3).
(Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
5. Compare sheet 4, post - development DAs with post - development drainage areas presented in
Briarwood Road Plan (SUB201400066 /Sheet 8) and with WP0201400030. Post - development
drainage areas drawn to reflect effect of constructing Road `A' and Road `B' should not vary
across plan sets that depict the same roadway features. Sheet 8 of Briarwood Commercial Site
Road Plan appears most accurate; please revise pre- /post - development drainage areas; show
drainage divides' upper boundaries coincident with topographical high points. DA #lA should be
eliminated unless drainage features exist to define DA as drawn. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Show pipe DIA and L for existing and proposed pipes beneath Briarwood Drive that carry ditch flow south
to north, across Briarwood Drive, near intersection with U.S. Rte. 29. Existing pipe is approx 125 -ft, while
proposed pipe is approx 140 -ft in length. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Forebay spillway detail shows spillway crest elev = 428' and 10 -year W.S.E. — 427.74'. Please
show 10 -year W.S.E. below spillway crest. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. SCS routing shows that the SWM facility contains the 100 -yr storm event with > 2 -ft of freeboard,
without an emergency spillway, but the 10 -year event approaches riser pipe inlet elev. of 428 -ft.
Furnish anti -vortex detail and trash rack for multi -stage 30" DIA riser (VSMH, Figs. 3.07 -3a, -
3.b). (Rev. 1) Request for anti - vortex device withdrawn — detained 2- /10 -yr storm elevations
are below crest of extended detention facility #3, 30" riser; sheet 4.
9. Extended Detention Facility Summary and Extended Detention Facility Data are somewhat
inconsistent; for example: V = 68.8 cu.yd. (sheet 4). 2x WQV = 3,715 cf, but sheet 5 lists 2x
WQV required = 2,583 cf. Also, WQV provided is listed as 3,205 cf, and elsewhere as 16,828 cf.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 7
Please re -check calculations and compare against extended detention SWM facility design. (Rev.
1) Comment addressed.
10. All details on sheet 5 should be to scale. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Stormwater Runoff Considerations Note on sheet 6 does not appear to relate to Briarwood
Commercial Road. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
12. Minor: reverse < symbol, sheet 4, Watershed Summary, to indicate present 2- and 10 -year storm
event peak discharges are > developed condition. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
NEW
13. Remove image of extended detention facility from pre - development window, sheet 3. (Rev. 2)
Comment addressed.
14. Label schematic of development feature (second gasoline station ?) on post - development window,
sheet 3. This detail is new, not shown on corresponding Apr -15 plans; it requires a label that
describes what it is (and reason for showing it). Future development north of Briarwood Drive
does not appear on plans under review. Please confirm and specify future impervious area
calculated to be included with revised underground detention system design (WP0201400030);
area is believed to be 29,500 SF. Currently, proposals for widening Briarwood Drive, constructing
new private roads, and site development south of Briarwood Drive (gas station) are under review.
No assurance is made with respect to review or approval of site or WPO design features tied to
future development. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed via plan revision d. 7/31, submitted 8/1/14.
15. Label L/W of floor of main basin and forebay of extended detention SWM facility #3 detail, sheet
4, since storage at elevation 432' has increased. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
16. New -With respect to SWPPP dated 7/20/14 prepared by Collins Engineering for construction
activities at Briarwood Commercial Lots, received 7/24/14:
Registration Statement (General VPDES Permit) latitude /longitude do not match SWPP project
coordinates; please reconcile.
- Estimate start- finish / installation - removal dates throughout the SWPPP.
Revise inspection schedule (p. 26). Inspections are required at least once every 10 business days (plus
additional requirements). [Ref. 9VAC25- 880 -70, Part 77, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, F.,
Inspections, 2., Inspection Schedule]
- SWPPP, p. 26, identifies one individual responsible for inspection. Confirm that this individual accepts
sole responsibility for scheduled inspections, reporting, recordkeeping, notification, and for directing
corrective response relating to SWPPP proposed to cover all Briarwood Commercial projects.
EXHIBIT TO SHOW CONCRETE WASH OUT, PORTA - JOHNS, AND FUELING AREA (7/21/14): Show concrete wash
out area (not shown). Concrete wash out area/s may not drain to storm inlets. Propose treatment for concrete
wash waters. [§ 17- 404.B.]
- Show on -site dumpster. Provide treatment (or detention) of dumpster drain water. Dumpster runoff may
contain contaminants that may not discharge freely downslope, to a storm inlet, or to any stream. Provide silt
fence or earthen berm at porta johns as containment in event of spill. Furnish impermeable containment, a
barrier to infiltration designed to hold the entire volume of stored fuel in event of spill, with freeboard measure
of safety, for each fueling tank shown in the SWPP exhibit.
- 17- 404.B. l .a. Wash waters — "Minimize the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing,
wheel wash water, and other wash waters. Wash waters must be treated in a sediment basin or alternative
control that provides equivalent or better treatment prior to discharge." Propose treatment for wash water.
Construction entrance with wash rack to the north does not drain to a sediment basin; propose treatment.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 7
Label construction entrance on plan sheets as Paved CE, with wash rack [ref. WP0201300072, E &S
Sequence of Construction Note 3]. Provide detail found at p. 27 of ACDSM —link:
http: / /www. albemarle. oriz/department. asp ?department= cdd &relpaae =4447
Transfer SWPPP best management practices to project plan sheets: practices or narrative listed/shown in
SWPPP and on WPO plans should mirror each other.
Revise SWPPP, SWPPP plan sheets, and corresponding WPO plan sheets.
17. New - Furnish letter of coverage, VDEQ General VPDES Permit.
C. Erosion Control Plan -Road plan WPO (WP0201300072)
1. Provide diversion dikes below 2.5:1 sediment trap 1 (ST1) fill slope embankment to keep runoff from
jumping the roadside ditch and reaching U.S. Rte. 29 SBL (sheet 7). (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed. With revised ESC, furnish sediment traps at low end of each diversion dike that ends at inlet
(DI) of pipe beneath Briarwood Drive. IP alone is insufficient. [See also WP0201400059, ESC plan
comments, 7/14/14, items #4.] (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
2. Provide diversion dikes on south side of Briarwood Drive from the Entrance to Road `A' to the inlet of the
existing pipe beneath Briarwood Drive at U.S. Rte. 29. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed, but please see #1,
above.
3. Show SAF on plans. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Show SAF along south edge of Briarwood
Drive. Provide SF, this location, as well. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
4. Relocate stone weir outfall, ST 1. Avoid steep 14 -ft high fill slope. Realign weir outfall to avoid
perpendicular alignment with Rte. 29 (parallel to Rte. 29 would be ideal). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Sheet 9 — Revise Existing Sediment Trap #1 detail title (not existing) [Rev. 1— Addressed]; check DA, SB
#1 against DA, sheet 7 [Addressed]; revise DIA of dewatering orifice and DIA of flexible tubing, SB #1
[Addressed]; correct t,,, SB #1 [Revise t, to 9.0 min; delete Min. 1.0' dimension label on sediment basin
profiles (emergency spillways are not proposed for either basin) [Review error, comment withdrawn].
6. Delete reference to underground detention facility #2, Note 9, sheet 6. This facility is not part of
WP0201400030, WP0201300072, WP0201300018, or SUB201400066. (Rev. 1) In combining ESC for
amended underground detention system (WP0201400030) with road plan's two -phase ESC plan, it is
evident that the sequence of construction is problematic. It appears unlikely any downslope controls can be
installed near Wall #3, given space limitations for road, sidewalk, etc. This means there is nothing shown in
Phase 2 design to limit off -site sediment transport, other than IP on new or existing storm drains. Rather,
Phase 1 of the ESC plan shows limited grading for the private road and construction of a portion of the
retaining wall. Without considering the question of whether the wall can be built to design in two
horizontal sections, sheets 6 (phase 1) and 7 (phase 2) as well as sequence of construction notes (sheet 5),
show that sediment basin #1 will serve as perimeter control for grading shown in phase 1 only. Sediment
basin #1 (or alternative, effective ESC measures) must remain in place until grading and improvements,
including widening Briarwood Drive, are complete. Sediment basin #1 must remain in place until upslope
areas are stabilized (graded sections near wall, wall construction complete, private road [to extent shown]
complete, Briarwood Drive widening complete). Installing the 3 -line underground system is only possible
after upslope disturbed areas are stabilized (Sequence Note 12), and should be delayed until such time as
they are. Please revise sheets 5 (sequence of construction; please call to discuss), 6 (ESC -Phase 1), and 7
(ESC -Phase 2). Please re- evaluate sequence and revise to provide adequate ESC measures for all stages of
Engineering Review Comments
Page 7 of 7
road, slope, and wall construction, and during installation of the amended (3 -line) underground detention
system. ESC measures shown for installation of the underground detention system on WP0201400030
(Apr -15) plans did not transfer to these plans. Notably, a sediment trap shown between the system and U.S.
Rte 29 is eliminated, and no ESC measures take its place. There is no apparent provision for ESC during
installation of the underground detention system north of Briarwood Drive. Please provide ESC for this
phase of work. [Ref. 5/22/14 Underground Detention ESC plan review comments, #3, specifically] (Rev.
2) Comment addressed.
7. All basin and trap profiles on sheet 9 should be to scale. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Identify any off -site borrow or waste sites. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed. (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed.
9. (New) Sheet 7 proposes grading affecting 30 -ft of vertical contours, near Wall #3. Provide ESC measures
and sequence of construction that prevent sediment -laden runoff from reaching Briarwood Drive or off -site
receiving streams or entering 3 -line amended underground detention system during all phases of grading.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
10. Minor, new, sheet 8 — revise crest of stone weir elevation in sediment trap #1 profile to read 427.00'; revise
30" DIA riser top elevation (sediment basin #2 profile) to read = 428.96'. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
11. (New) SEE ESC comment #1, WP0201400059, 7- 14 -14: MS -19: photos indicate erosion down slope of
pipe outfalls beneath U.S. Rte. 29, an indication that receiving channels are inadequate. The computations
should reflect this, and appropriate measures should be specified to correct the problem. The computations
(roughness and velocities) appear to indicate conditions of adequacy that do not exist. (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed.
D. Final Plat
1. Must match road plan.
File: WP0201300072, SUB201400066- briarwood- 080414rev -2
R -
R` � l
AI
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virgin 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
July 16, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB - 2014 -00066 Briarwood Commercial Lots t Road Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plan entitled Briarwood Commercial Lots dated 4.115114 with
revisions dated 6111114 as submitted by Collins Engineering and offer the following comments:
The raised concrete median at the intersection of "Road B" and Route 29 is not necessary
to make this entrance right - in/right -out. However, if the median is to be constructed,
additional information is needed such as:
a. Length of the median
b. Width of the median
c. Offset of the median from the through lane of Route 29
2. Corner clearance information has to the intersection of Briarwood Drive and "Road A"
has been added to sheet 3. The actual dimensioning of this spacing should be shown on
the plan sheet.
3. The resubmittal letter discusses the turn lane warrant for the right - in/right -out turn lane
for "Road B ". The actual turn lane warrant should be provided for review, including the
determination for the lane and taper lengths.
4. Storm structure 46 has not been labeled on several plan sheets.
5. The trip generation for "Road A ", "Road B ", and Elm Tree Court appear to show a
directional split. Pavement design should account for total ADT on a road section, not
ADT in one direction. It appears that the trip generation for each of these roads should be
doubled to correspond with the TIA.
6. The Pavement Design Table has a Design ADT that is 50 vehicles more than the
provided ADT. While it is wise to be conservative in design, what is the basis for an
additional 50 vehicles? The reality is that 50 additional vehicles only will have very little
impact on the pavement design.
7. What is the existing pavement structure for Briarwood Drive? Typically, additional lanes
would match the existing pavement structure.
8. We would recommend that the CG -12's at the end of the sidewalk nearest to Route 29
along "Road B" be removed so as to not encourage pedestrian traffic towards Route 29.
9. It should be noted on the plans that all relocated guard rail is to have GR -9 end sections.
10. There should be a noted added to the profiles that all structures with a depth of 4' or
greater shall have steps in accordance with standard ST -1 as found in the 2008 Road and
Bridge Standards.
11. There should be a noted added to the profiles that all structures with a depth of 12' or
greater shall have safety slabs in accordance with standard SL -1 as found in the 2008
Road and Bridge Standards.
12. The proposed taper for the additional left turn lane on Route 29 is not acceptable. At a
minimum, the taper will need to be 200' in length.
13. There is an existing drainage structure in the grass median of Route 29 near the beginning
of the left turn lanes on Route 29 north that is not shown on the topographic survey. This
structure will likely need to be adjusted to provide for an adequate taper for the proposed
left turn lane as discussed above. In addition, the guard rail in this vicinity will likely
need to be relocated.
14. The MOT Plan should show the location of the signage and /or channelizing measures on
the plan view instead of just providing a detail for the Work Area Protection Manual.
15. It appears that a significant amount of runoff from Briarwood Drive will by -pass the
proposed storm sewer and flow into Route 29. This condition will need to be addressed.
16. Approval of the proposed lane striping and phasing for the traffic signal improvements
will need to be approved by Northwest Regional Operations prior to approval of the road
plans.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 589 -5871.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
�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: Briarwood Commercial Road Plan, & Road Plan WPO
Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.: Wendell Wood and Nena Harrell [ulcwww @embargmail.com]
Woodbrier Associates L [P. O. Box 5548, Charlottesville VA 22905]
Plan received date: 15 April 2014 [WPO], 16 April 2014 [Road]
(Rev. 1) 12 June 2014 [Road], 16 June 2014 [WPO /SWM &ESC]
Date of comments: 22 May 2014
(Rev. 1) 15 July 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
Please contact reviewer to schedule a meeting to discuss comments, if helpful.
A. Road plan (SUB201400066)
1. Provide the traffic study approved by VDOT. (Rev. 1) TIA lends question: Briarwood
Commercial Development TIA (Table 4.2 ITE Trip Generation) by Davenport (Project # 13 -338,
11/20/13, rev. 3/7/14) shows 24 -hr two -way volume trip generation for Areas A -B -C as 10,896.
Sheet 6 displays this data (Elm Tree Court) using a double -end arrow and label: 5,448 VPD. TIA
shows 24 -hour two -way volume trip generation for Areas D -E -F as 11,324. Sheet 6 displays this
data (Road `A') as 5,662 VPD. Revise labels to show that 10,896 and 11,324 VPD are TIA 2 -way
estimates. The figures 5,448 and 5.662 may be mistaken as total 2 -way estimates, which they are
not.
2. Remove entrances from the road plans. These must be approved with site plans. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
3. Grading off -site for culvert drainage system N of Elm Tree Court requires easement, or remove.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed. [Jun -]1 letter: "Existing grading easement allows for disturbance
10' into the existing lot. No lot disturbance occurs outside of this area. ",
4. Grading on the townhouse lots west of Road `A' cannot be approved as a road plan. This must be
on a site plan. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed —Bonds will need to be signed by the owners of all
properties on which construction takes place, or legal easements will be needed [ref – Albemarle
County Design Standards Manual [ ACDSM], 8. Grading; C. Off -site work]. [Jun -11 letter:
"Townhouse grading approved under SDP - 2010 -84 and is an existing condition for this road plan.
Proposed grading ties into the approved grading as shown on Sheet 4 "].
5. Subdivision Ordinance 14.422.D. requires 6' planting strips. Plans show 3' (sheet 6). (Rev. 1)
Ref, Planning Division comments dated July 3, 2014, comment 44 — "A waiver request [for 3'
wide planting strips] shall be taken to the Planning Commission for consideration."
6. Retaining Walls: Please provide specific, geotechnical engineering details for all retaining walls.
Proposed walls 1, 2, and 3 each have sections that equal or exceed 6' in height. Proposed Wall 3
located 25 -ft from residential lot lines with 2:1 slopes falling 30 -ft at one point to top of wall
elevation of 440' and further 8' drop to sidewalk, falling elsewhere 2:1 16 -ft to top of wall
elevation of 444' with further 16' drop to concrete sidewalk presents inherent danger. (Rev. 1)
Comment not addressed. [See ACDSM 8.B.2.b. /c.] Please provide specific, geotechnical
engineering details for all retaining walls, including Redi -rock Ledgestone gravity wall system.
Revise handrail /fence post detail, sheet 5: show a zero (0 %) slope extending at least 24" behind
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 6
wall (railing post may not coincide with drainage swale low- point); show drainage swale in every
view of Wall #3 —D, E, F, G, H, I. Consider, show, and detail sub - surface drainage features.
Label and dimension aggregate prism installed immediately behind SRW blocks in handrail /fence
post detail. Specify drainage at foundation (or higher levels) as necessary to ensure areas
immediately behind each wall have adequate drainage. Do not show unbroken 2:1 slope behind
wall #3, but in each section view (D -I), break slope with drainage swale located at least 24" behind
wall. Furnish qualified Engineer's report that life cycles and surcharge of plantings shown in
schematic and table views on sheet 5 and 15, and on sheet 2 of (SDP201300035) Briarwood Site
Plan Amendment #2, Briarwood Phases IA -A, IB -1, 4 -8, received 23 -June 14, will not
compromise integrity of walls or geogrid, if geogrid is used. Avoid planting within drip -line
distance of walls. A 314 sf canopy tree, for example, should not be planted within 10 -ft of walls.
Explanatory note that "final structure wall design to be submitted with final structural engineering
plans" does not meet review requirements. Retaining wall design is a precondition to approval of
road plan, mitigation plan [SDP201300035], and site plan [SDP201400047] since integral to
infrastructure of the site (Road `A').
7. Delete Notes 1 and 2, sheet 5. These notes are invalid. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed;
sheet 5 segmented retaining wall (SRW) and geogrid reinforcement details removed. New sheet
5 Wall Cross - sections and Details are inadequate. Ref. ACDSM, 8.B.2.c.
8. Provide handrail elements on all walls. Given proposed wall heights, a typical detail is
insufficient. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Handrail shown for Wall #3, only (see
sections D -I, sheet 5). No railing shown for sections of Wall #1 or 2 (sections A, B, C, sheet 5).
Furnish safety railing for all proposed wall sections 4' or higher. Also, see comment #6, above.
9. Show managed slopes on Wall Number 3 detail –sheet 5. Ref. AC Code Ch. 18 §30.7, Steep
Slopes Overlay District, and §30.7.5, Design Standards for requirements pertaining to managed
slope retaining wall design requirements, or limits. Revise designs accordingly. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
10. 125' and 140' Radius curves on Road `A' near Briarwood Drive should be revised to 198' Radius,
minimum, to avoid VDOT super - elevation requirements (Ref. VDOT Road Design Manual,
Geometric Design Standards for Urban Local Street System [GS -8]; Road and Bridge Standards,
Sec. 800, Transition Curves, 803.23, Summary of Standard TC -5.11 ULS [Urban Low Speed]
Design Factors, Minimum Radii for Designs Utilizing -2% Super - elevation Normal Pavement
Crown). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Furnish street sign, NW corner of intersection of Camelot and Briarwood Drive –sheet 3. (Rev. l )
Comment addressed.
12. Island at Intersection Road `B' and U.S. Rte. 29 SBL and median islands on Briarwood Drive
should have 3' R, Minimum. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
13. Intersection of Road `B' and Road `A' must provide a 40' landing with slope < 4 %. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
14. Elm Tree Court profile (sheet 9) note states `End road construction at Sta. 11 +75 with temporary
turn- around, see plans for details.' Furnish design details for temporary turn- around. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
15. Sheet 6 – Typical Neighborhood Street Section references Road A, B, and C. Where is Road `C'?
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
16. Revise sheet 8 label to read "Underground detention facility #1 proposed under WPO- 2014 -30.
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
17. Sheet 6 presents 13 drainage or roadway details. Details are unreadable. Enlarge details to the
point information is legible, or remove standard VDOT detail:, (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
18. Sheet 7 presents 14 utility details. Details are unreadable. Enlarge details to the point that
information is readable. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
19. Str -8 (type, DI -7) – the DA that lies between the 0.23 Ac. DA for Str -8 and the 0.53 Ac. DA for
Str -6 should be added to the 0.23 Ac. DA for Str -8. Capacity- spread calculations should be
revised (Drop Inlet table, sheet 12). (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed; 10 -yr design storm
table, sheet 14, lacks column headings- please provide column headings.
20. Str -24 (type, DI -7) – Drop Inlet table, sheet 12, shows that under 6.5 in/hr conditions, orifice flow
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 6
at Str -24 will lead to depth above grate = 6.8 in (0.56'). Rim elevation of Str -24 is 409.52'. Under
6.5 in/hr conditions, storm runoff would follow the 410' contour into US 29 and travel north in
both south and northbound lanes. Under these conditions, plans show storm runoff at Str -24 >
410' that, for periods of time, evades detention with potential to impact all arterial travel lanes at
the intersection of U.S. Rte. 29 and Briarwood Drive. Str -24 appears inadequate. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
21. VDOT approval is required. Comments are attached. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
22. For Road `A', Road B', Briarwood Drive, each entrance and intersection, "all design elements are
expected to be to VDOT standards, including curb, gutter, pavement, striping, etc, unless an
alternative is approved." {Design Manual, sec. 71. (Rev. 1) Acknowledged.
NEW
23. Increase radius of curve at NE corner of Road `A' -Road `B' intersection to 30 -ft, Min, to allow
longer vehicles to clear opposing traffic when turning [Ref. AASHTO /Minimum Turning Paths of
Design Vehicles —link: http: / /design transportation.orw Documents /TumRadii,GreenBook2004.12df ]
24. Provide stationing for Briarwood Drive to aide design, review, bond estimate, bond reduction,
inspection, and maintenance: begin with station 10 +00 at CL intersection Briarwood Drive and
Elm Tree Court. In addition, furnish: CL profile for Briarwood Drive; typical cross sections at
these points: tip of median near Rte. 29; widest and narrowest widths east of Road `A'; and
between Road `A' and Elm Tree Court. Indicate drainage patterns. Show symmetrical transition
of pavement at intersection with existing street (Rte. 29) [18- 32.6.2.f].
25. Provide storm drain inlets to capture uncollected runoff from Briarwood Drive; these inlets should
be located as close to Rte. 29 as possible, included with median design. To this end, furnish inlets
along each side of the proposed median on Briarwood Drive, just prior to Rte. 29. Propose
structures within the median structure, on each side. ' /a" per ft. crown for the 3 lanes into the
subdivision and the 4 lanes out should transition smoothly to U.S. Rte 29, existing EP.
26. Inlet structures Ex -38 and Ex -37, sheet 4: One or the other will be relocated; please indicate which.
27. Sheet 5: for Wall sections A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, show road station that corresponds with each
section ( Briarwood Drive, or Road `A'). There is no clear reference to locate these sections.
28. Add County `General Construction Notes for Streets' to plans —ref. ACDSM.
29. Supplement Retaining Wall Notes, to include, at a minimum: i) The Owner shall engage inspection
and testing services (quality control) during construction to ensure project design requirements are
met; the lack of quality control by the owner does not relieve the contractor of these requirements;
ii) quality control shall include but not be limited to: foundation soil inspection, verification of
geotechnical design parameters, and verification that construction is in general compliance with the
design drawings; iii) only qualified and experienced technicians shall perform testing and
inspections services.
30. VDOT approval is required for improvements to Briarwood Drive and the new intersection design
and location.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 6
B. Stormwater Management Plan -Road plan WPO (WPO201300072)
1. Pre - development is all wooded, without impervious areas. Use 1 -2% existing impervious area
to calculate %RR, sheet 4. Revise 9% pre - development impervious to 1 -2 %. I(post) will
change. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
2. Treatment must be provided for all improvements (see also WPO201400030). (Rev. 1) VDOT
restrictions on use of Filterra units within public RW set practical limits on extent of water quality
treatment. Nevertheless, collection, rather than release of runoff from expanded width of
Briarwood Drive is possible with storm inlets positioned within new proposed median close to
U.S. 29 ( #25, above).
3. Sheet 2 and 3 existing (pre - development) topography should match. Eliminate post - development
contours associated with roadway construction from pre - development view (sheet 4). (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
4. Do not show the proposed three line SWM underground detention system as pre - development;
WPO201300018 approved a two -line system which was never constructed while WPO201300072 made
application for a three line system. Pre - development condition includes a sediment basin that accepts runoff
from a portion of Briarwood Drive. Underground storage is not the pre - developed condition (ref sheet 3).
(Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
5. Compare sheet 4, post - development DAs with post - development drainage areas presented in
Briarwood Road Plan (SUB201400066 /Sheet 8) and with WPO201400030. Post - development
drainage areas drawn to reflect effect of constructing Road `A' and Road `B' should not vary
across plan sets that depict the same roadway features. Sheet 8 of Briarwood Commercial Site
Road Plan appears most accurate; please revise pre- /post - development drainage areas; show
drainage divides' upper boundaries coincident with topographical high points. DA #lA should be
eliminated unless drainage features exist to define DA as drawn. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
6. Show pipe DIA and L for existing and proposed pipes beneath Briarwood Drive that carry ditch flow south
to north, across Briarwood Drive, near intersection with U.S. Rte. 29. Existing pipe is approx 125 -ft, while
proposed pipe is approx 140 -ft in length. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
7. Forebay spillway detail shows spillway crest elev = 428' and 10 -year W.S.E. = 427.74'. Please
show 10 -year W.S.E. below spillway crest. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. SCS routing shows that the SWM facility contains the 100 -yr storm event with > 2 -ft of freeboard,
without an emergency spillway, but the 10 -year event approaches riser pipe inlet elev. of 428 -ft.
Furnish anti -vortex detail and trash rack for multi -stage 30" DIA riser (VSMH, Figs. 3.07 -3a, -
3.b). (Rev. 1) Request for anti - vortex device withdrawn — detained 2- /10 -yr storm elevations
are below crest of extended detention facility #3, 30" riser; sheet 4.
9. Extended Detention Facility Summary and Extended Detention Facility Data are somewhat
inconsistent; for example: V = 68.8 cu.yd. (sheet 4). 2x WQV = 3,715 cf, but sheet 5 lists 2x
WQV required = 2,583 cf. Also, WQV provided is listed as 3,205 cf, and elsewhere as 16,828 cf.
Please re -check calculations and compare against extended detention SWM facility design. (Rev.
1) Comment addressed.
10. All details on sheet 5 should be to scale. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
11. Stormwater Runoff Considerations Note on sheet 6 does not appear to relate to Briarwood
Commercial Road. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 6
12. Minor: reverse < symbol, sheet 4, Watershed Summary, to indicate present 2- and 10 -year storm
event peak discharges are > developed condition. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
NEW
13. Remove image of extended detention facility from pre - development window, sheet 3.
14. Label schematic of development feature (second gasoline station ?) on post - development window,
sheet 3. This detail is new, not shown on corresponding Apr -15 plans; it requires a label that
describes what it is (and reason for showing it). Future development north of Briarwood Drive
does not appear on plans under review. Please confirm and specify future impervious area
calculated to be included with revised underground detention system design (WP0201400030);
area is believed to be 29,500 SF. Currently, proposals for widening Briarwood Drive, constructing
new private roads, and site development south of Briarwood Drive (gas station) are under review.
No assurance is made with respect to review or approval of site or WPO design features tied to
future development.
15. Label L/W of floor of main basin and forebay of extended detention SWM facility #3 detail, sheet
4, since storage at elevation 432' has increased.
C. Erosion Control Plan -Road plan WPO (WP0201300072)
1. Provide diversion dikes below 2.5:1 sediment trap 1 (ST 1) fill slope embankment to keep runoff from
jumping the roadside ditch and reaching U.S. Rte. 29 SBL (sheet 7). (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed. With revised ESC, furnish sediment traps at low end of each diversion dike that ends at inlet
(DI) of pipe beneath Briarwood Drive. IP alone is insufficient. [See also WP0201400059, ESC plan
comments, 7/14/14, items #4.]
2. Provide diversion dikes on south side of Briarwood Drive from the Entrance to Road `A' to the inlet of the
existing pipe beneath Briarwood Drive at U.S. Rte. 29. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed, but please see #1,
above.
3. Show SAF on plans. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Show SAF along south edge of Briarwood
Drive. Provide SF, this location, as well.
4. Relocate stone weir outfall, ST I. Avoid steep 14 -ft high fill slope. Realign weir outfall to avoid
perpendicular alignment with Rte. 29 (parallel to Rte. 29 would be ideal). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
5. Sheet 9 Revise Existing Sediment Trap #1 detail title (not existing) [Rev. 1— Addressed]; check DA, SB
#1 against DA, sheet 7 [Addressed]; revise DIA of dewatering orifice and DIA of flexible tubing, SB #1
[Addressed]; correct t,,, SB #1 [Revise t, to 9.0 min; delete Min. 1.0' dimension label on sediment basin
profiles (emergency spillways are not proposed for either basin) [Review error, comment withdrawn].
6. Delete reference to underground detention facility #2, Note 9, sheet 6. This facility is not part of
WP0201400030, WP0201300072, WP0201300018, or SUB201400066. (Rev. 1) In combining ESC for
amended underground detention system (WP0201400030) with road plan's two -phase ESC plan, it is
evident that the sequence of construction is problematic. It appears unlikely any downslope controls can be
installed near Wall #3, given space limitations for road, sidewalk, etc. This means there is nothing shown in
Phase 2 design to limit off -site sediment transport, other than IP on new or existing storm drains. Rather,
Phase 1 of the ESC plan shows limited grading for the private road and construction of a portion of the
retaining wall. Without considering the question of whether the wall can be built to design in two
horizontal sections, sheets 6 (phase 1) and 7 (phase 2) as well as sequence of construction notes (sheet 5),
Engineering Review Comments
Page 6 of 6
show that sediment basin #1 will serve as perimeter control for grading shown in phase I only. Sediment
basin # 1 (or alternative, effective ESC measures) must remain in place until grading and improvements,
including widening Briarwood Drive, are complete. Sediment basin #1 must remain in place until upslope
areas are stabilized (graded sections near wall, wall construction complete, private road [to extent shown]
complete, Briarwood Drive widening complete). Installing the 3 -line underground system is only possible
after upslope disturbed areas are stabilized (Sequence Note 12), and should be delayed until such time as
they are. Please revise sheets 5 (sequence of construction; please call to discuss), 6 (ESC -Phase 1), and 7
(ESC -Phase 2). Please re- evaluate sequence and revise to provide adequate ESC measures for all stages of
road, slope, and wall construction, and during installation of the amended (3 -line) underground detention
system. ESC measures shown for installation of the underground detention system on WPO201400030
(Apr -15) plans did not transfer to these plans. Notably, a sediment trap shown between the system and U.S.
Rte 29 is eliminated, and no ESC measures take its place. There is no apparent provision for ESC during
installation of the underground detention system north of Briarwood Drive. Please provide ESC for this
phase of work. [Ref. 5/22/14 Underground Detention ESC plan review comments, #3, specifically]
7. All basin and trap profiles on sheet 9 should be to scale. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
8. Identify any off -site borrow or waste sites. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
9. (New) Sheet 7 proposes grading affecting 30 -ft of vertical contours, near Wall #3. Provide ESC measures
and sequence of construction that prevent sediment -laden runoff from reaching Briarwood Drive or off -site
receiving streams or entering 3 -line amended underground detention system during all phases of grading.
10. Minor, new, sheet 8 — revise crest of stone weir elevation in sediment trap #1 profile to read 427.00'; revise
30" DIA riser top elevation (sediment basin #2 profile) to read = 428.96'.
11. (New) SEE ESC comment #1, WPO201400059, 7- 14 -14: MS -19: photos indicate erosion down slope of
pipe outfalls beneath U.S. Rte. 29, an indication that receiving channels are inadequate. The computations
should reflect this, and appropriate measures should be specified to correct the problem. The computations
(roughness and velocities) appear to indicate conditions of adequacy that do not exist.
D. Final Plat
1. Must match road plan.
File: WPO201300072, SUB201400066- briarwood- 071514rev -1
�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: Briarwood Commercial Road Plan, & Road Plan WPO
Plan preparer: Scott Collins; Collins Engineering [200 Garrett St., Suite K, Charlottesville, VA
22902, scott(a)collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.: Wendell Wood and Nena Harrell [ulcwww @embarqmail.com]
Woodbrier Associates L [P. O. Box 5548, Charlottesville VA 22905]
Plan received date: 15 April 2014 [WPO], 16 April 2014 [Road]
Date of comments: 22 May 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
A. Road plan (SUB201400066)
1. Provide the traffic study approved by VDOT.
2. Remove entrances from the road plans. These must be approved with site plans.
3. Grading off -site for culvert drainage system N of Elm Tree Court requires easement, or remove.
4. Grading on the townhouse lots west of Road `A' cannot be approved as a road plan. This must be
on a site plan.
5. Subdivision Ordinance 14.422.D. requires 6' planting strips. Plans show 3' (sheet 6).
6. Retaining Walls: Please provide specific, geotechnical engineering details for all retaining walls.
Proposed walls 1, 2, and 3 each have sections that equal or exceed 6' in height. Proposed Wall 3
located 25 -ft from residential lot lines with 2:1 slopes falling 30 -ft at one point to top of wall
elevation of 440' and further 8' drop to sidewalk, falling elsewhere 2:1 16 -ft to top of wall
elevation of 444' with further 16' drop to concrete sidewalk presents inherent danger.
7. Delete Notes 1 and 2, sheet 5. These notes are invalid.
8. Provide handrail elements on all walls. Given proposed wall heights, a typical detail is
insufficient.
9. Show managed slopes on Wall Number 3 detail —sheet 5. Ref. AC Code Ch. 18 §30.7, Steep
Slopes Overlay District, and §30.7.5, Design Standards for requirements pertaining to managed
slope retaining wall design requirements, or limits. Revise designs accordingly.
10. 125' and 140' Radius curves on Road `A' near Briarwood Drive should be revised to 198' Radius,
minimum, to avoid VDOT super - elevation requirements (Ref. VDOT Road Design Manual,
Geometric Design Standards for Urban Local Street System [GS -8]; Road and Bridge Standards,
Sec. 800, Transition Curves, 803.23, Summary of Standard TC -5.11 ULS [Urban Low Speed]
Design Factors, Minimum Radii for Designs Utilizing -2% Super - elevation Normal Pavement
Crown).
11. Furnish street sign, NW corner of intersection of Camelot and Briarwood Drive —sheet 3.
12. Island at Intersection Road `B' and U.S. Rte. 29 SBL and median islands on Briarwood Drive
should have Y R, Minimum.
13. Intersection of Road `B' and Road `A' must provide a 40' landing with slope < 4 %.
14. Elm Tree Court profile (sheet 9) note states `End road construction at Sta. 11 +75 with temporary
turn- around, see plans for details.' Furnish design details for temporary turn- around.
15. Sheet 6 — Typical Neighborhood Street Section references Road A, B, and C. Where is Road `C'?
16. Revise sheet 8 label to read "Underground detention facility #1 proposed under WPO- 2014 -30.
17. Sheet 6 presents 13 drainage or roadway details. Details are unreadable. Enlarge details to the
point information is legible, or remove standard VDOT details.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
18. Sheet 7 presents 14 utility details. Details are unreadable. Enlarge details to the point that
information is readable.
19. Str -8 (type, DI -7) - the DA that lies between the 0.23 Ac. DA for Str -8 and the 0.53 Ac. DA for
Str -6 should be added to the 0.23 Ac. DA for Str -8. Capacity- spread calculations should be
revised (Drop Inlet table, sheet 12).
20. Str -24 (type, DI -7) - Drop Inlet table, sheet 12, shows that under 6.5 in/hr conditions, orifice flow
at Str -24 will lead to depth above grate = 6.8 in (0.56'). Rim elevation of Str -24 is 409.52'. Under
6.5 in/hr conditions, storm runoff would follow the 410' contour into US 29 and travel north in
both south and northbound lanes. Under these conditions, plans show storm runoff at Str -24 >
410' that, for periods of time, evades detention with potential to impact all arterial travel lanes at
the intersection of U.S. Rte. 29 and Briarwood Drive. Str -24 appears inadequate.
21. VDOT approval is required. Comments are attached.
22. For Road `A', Road `B', Briarwood Drive, each entrance and intersection, "all design elements are
expected to be to VDOT standards, including curb, gutter, pavement, striping, etc, unless an
alternative is approved." {Design Manual, sec. 71
B. Stormwater Management Plan -Road plan WPO (WP0201300072)
1. Pre - development is all wooded, without impervious areas. Use 1 -2% existing impervious area
to calculate %RR, sheet 4. Revise 9% pre - development impervious to 1 -2 %. I(post) will
change.
2. Treatment must be provided for all improvements (see also WP0201400030).
3. Sheet 2 and 3 existing (pre- development) topography should match. Eliminate post - development
contours associated with roadway construction from pre - development view (sheet 4).
4. Do not show the proposed three line SWM underground detention system as pre - development;
WP0201300018 approved a two -line system which was never constructed while WP0201300072 made
application for a three line system. Pre - development condition includes a sediment basin that accepts runoff
from a portion of Briarwood Drive. Underground storage is not the pre - developed condition (ref sheet 3).
5. Compare sheet 4, post - development DAs with post - development drainage areas presented in
Briarwood Road Plan (SUB201400066 /Sheet 8) and with WP0201400030. Post - development
drainage areas drawn to reflect effect of constructing Road `A' and Road `B' should not vary
across plan sets that depict the same roadway features. Sheet 8 of Briarwood Commercial Site
Road Plan appears most accurate; please revise pre- /post - development drainage areas; show
drainage divides' upper boundaries coincident with topographical high points. DA #lA should be
eliminated unless drainage features exist to define DA as drawn.
6. Show pipe DIA and L for existing and proposed pipes beneath Briarwood Drive that carry ditch flow south
to north, across Briarwood Drive, near intersection with U.S. Rte. 29. Existing pipe is approx 125 -ft, while
proposed pipe is approx 140 -ft in length.
7. Forebay spillway detail shows spillway crest elev = 428' and 10 -year W.S.E. = 427.74'. Please
show 10 -year W.S.E. below spillway crest.
8. SCS routing shows that the SWM facility contains the 100 -yr storm event with > 2 -ft of freeboard,
without an emergency spillway, but the 10 -year event approaches riser pipe inlet elev. of 428 -11.
Furnish anti -vortex detail and trash rack for multi -stage 30" DIA riser (VSMH, Figs. 3.07 -3a, -
3.b).
9. Extended Detention Facility Summary and Extended Detention Facility Data are somewhat
inconsistent; for example: V = 68.8 cu.yd. (sheet 4). 2x WQV = 3,715 cf, but sheet 5 lists 2x
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
WQV required = 2,583 cf. Also, WQV provided is listed as 3,205 cf, and elsewhere as 16,828 cf.
Please re -check calculations and compare against extended detention SWM facility design.
10. All details on sheet 5 should be to scale.
11. Stormwater Runoff Considerations Note on sheet 6 does not appear to relate to Briarwood
Commercial Road.
12. Minor: reverse < symbol, sheet 4, Watershed Summary, to indicate present 2- and 10 -year storm
event peak discharges are > developed condition.
C. Erosion Control Plan -Road plan WPO (WP0201300072)
1. Provide diversion dikes below 2.5:1 sediment trap 1 (ST 1) fill slope embankment to keep runoff from
jumping the roadside ditch and reaching U.S. Rte. 29 SBL (sheet 7).
2. Provide diversion dikes on south side of Briarwood Drive from the Entrance to Road `A' to the inlet of the
existing pipe beneath Briarwood Drive at U.S. Rte. 29.
3. Show SAF on plans.
4. Relocate stone weir outfall, ST 1. Avoid steep 14 -ft high fill slope. Realign weir outfall to avoid
perpendicular alignment with Rte. 29 (parallel to Rte. 29 would be ideal).
5. Sheet 9 — Revise Existing Sediment Trap #1 detail title (not existing); check DA, SB #1 against DA, sheet
7; revise DIA of dewatering orifice and DIA of flexible tubing, SB #1; correct t,, SB #1; delete Min. 1.0'
dimension label on sediment basin profiles (emergency spillways are not proposed for either basin).
6. Delete reference to underground detention facility #2, Note 9, sheet 6. This facility is not part of
WP0201400030, WP0201300072, WP0201300018, or SUB201400066.
7. All basin and trap profiles on sheet 9 should be to scale.
8. Identify any off -site borrow or waste sites.
D. Final Plat
1. Must match road plan.
File: WP0201300072, SUB201400066- briarwood- 052214
fife
got:� 0^
a k!
_ d•
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Vrgn a 22TA
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
May 21, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB - 2014 -00086 Briarwood Commercial Lots — Road Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plan for the Briarwood Commercial lots dated 4115114 as submitted
by Collins Engineering. The proposed commercial road is currently shown to be privately
owned and maintained, however, this road is to be designed to VDOT standards per County
requirements and the plan has been reviewed accordingly.
1. It appears that a sight easement is needed for the sight line to the left at the intersection of
Road "A" and Briarwood Drive. All sight easements should be 5' behind the sight lines
to ensure a clear line of sight.
2. The corner clearance for the proposed connection with Road "A" needs to be shown in
accordance with Appendix F of the Road Design Manual.
3. Warrants for the guard rail along Route 29 need to be provided for review.
4. Warrants for the right turn lane at the right - in/right -out entrance off of Route 29 need to
be provided for review.
5. More detail for the island at the right - in/right -out entrance needs to be provided.
6. More detail for the median in Briarwood Drive needs to be provided.
7. The minimum intersection radii should be 25'. This includes the proposed entrances off
of Road "A ".
8. The minimum spacing between the entrances off of Road "A" should be 50' between the
ends of radii.
9. Storm sewer pipe 35 appears to be radial. It is recommended that this pipe be installed
linearly.
10. Structure 12 should be shifted to the south of the intersection with Road `B" so that it
crosses Road "A" perpendicularly.
11. Based on the provided trip volumes, Roads "A ", "B ", and "C" should be designed using
the GS -8 design standard found in the Road Design Manual.
12. The proposed pavement design appears to be inadequate. The pavement design table
indicates that the thickness index of the proposed pavement design (Dp) is lower than the
thickness index required (Dr). In addition, the ADT information provided in the
pavement design table does not match the ADT information provided for each road
section.
13. I question the trip generation shown for road sections. There are two differing numbers
provided for Road "A ". Also, Road `B" and a portion of Road "A" have higher volumes
than that indicated for the primary access of Briarwood Drive. Additional information
supporting the trip generation should be provided.
14. There are a few sections of storm sewer in which the velocity exceeds 10 ft/s. Per the
VDOT Drainage Manual, it is recommended to maintain velocities under 10 ft/s due to
scour concerns. The design of these sections of storm sewer should be reconsidered.
15. A couple of sections of storm sewer are nearing capacity. HGL calculations should be
provided for review to verify adequacy of the storm sewer.
16. What accommodations are being proposed for pedestrians at the intersection of
Briarwood Drive and Route 29? It seems to me that we should end the sidewalk at the
intersection of Road "A" and Briarwood Drive. I do not think that it serves any purpose
to extend the sidewalk to Route 29. The right -of -way would be available if this would
become necessary in the future.
17. The TIA for the Briarwood Commercial Development calls for an additional left turn
lane on Route 29 traveling north to be added at the traffic signal. This improvement
should be included on the road plans.
18. The TIA for the Briarwood Commercial Development calls for modifications of the
traffic signal at the intersection of Briarwood Drive and Route 29. These modifications
will need to be approved by the VDOT Traffic section prior to approval of the road plans.
19. A maintenance of traffic plan for the improvements on Briarwood Drive and Route 29
needs to be added to the road plans.
20. Structure 24 is proposed to have a top of structure at an elevation of 409.52. Based on
hydraulic calculations, an intensity of 4 in/hour will result in a depth of 4 inches at the
inlet. An intensity of 6.8 in/hour will result in a depth of 6.8 inches at the inlet. This
results in depth of water that appears to sheet flow into and across Route 29. This is an
unacceptable condition and the design of the inlet/storm sewer at this location needs to be
reconsidered.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
t �
IWO '410#
01=21V;
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: Briarwood Commercial Road Plan,&Road Plan WPO
Plan preparer: Scott Collins;Collins Engineering[200 Garrett St.,Suite K,Charlottesville,VA
22902,scott@collins-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: Wendell Wood and Nena Harrell[ulcwww @embarqmail.com]
Woodbrier Associates L[P.O.Box 5548,Charlottesville VA 22905]
Plan received date: 15 April 2014[WPO], 16 April 2014 [Road]
(Rev. 1) 12 June 2014[Road], 16 June 2014 [WPO/SWM&ESC]
(Rev.2) 22 July 2014 [Road],24 July 2014 [WPO/SWM&ESC]
(Rev.3) 8 August 2014
Date of comments: 22 May 2014
(Rev. 1) 15 July 2014
(Rev.2) 4 August 2014
(Rev.3) 18 August 2014
Reviewer: John Anderson
Comments from previous revisions have been removed to help simplify this memo. They are still available for
viewing on the CountyView database system.
A.Road plan(SUB201400066)
1. (4 Aug-14 comment#6)
Retaining Walls: Please provide specific,geotechnical engineering details for all retaining walls.
Proposed walls 1.2,and 3 each have sections that equal or exceed 6' in height. Proposed Wall 3
located 25-ft from residential lot lines with 2:1 slopes falling 30-ft at one point to top of wall
elevation of 440' and further 8'drop to sidewalk,falling elsewhere 2:1 16-ft to top of wall
elevation of 444'with further 16'drop to concrete sidewalk presents inherent danger. (Rev.1)
Comment not addressed. [See ACDSM 8..B.2.b./c.1 Please provide specific,geotechnical
engineering details for all retaining walls.including Redi-rock Ledgestone gravity wall system.
Revise handrail/fence post detail,sheet 5: show a zero(0%)slope extending at least 24„behind
wall(railing post may not coincide with drainage swale low-point); show drainage swale in every
view of Wall#3—D,E,F,G,H,I. Consider,show,and detail sub-surface drainage features.
Label and dimension aggregate prism installed immediately behind SRW blocks in handrall;fence
post detail. Specify drainage at foundation(or higher levels)as necessary to ensure areas
immediately behind each wall have adequate drainage. Do not show unbroken 2:1 slope behind
wall#3,but in each section view(D-I),break slope with drainage swale located at least 24„behind
wall. Furnish qualified Engineer's report that life cycles and surcharge of plantings shown in
schematic and table views on sheet 5 and 15,and on sheet 2 of(.SDP201300035)Briarwood Site
Plan Amendment 42. Briarwood Phases IA-A, I B-I, 4-8,received 23-June 14,will not
compromise integrity of walls or geogrid,if geogrid is used. Avoid planting within drip-line
distance of walls. A 314 sf canopy tree,fix example,should not be planted within 10-ft of walls.
Explanatory note that"final structure wall design to be submitted'with final structural engineering
plans"does not meet review requirements. Retaining wall design is a precondition to approval of
road plan,mitigation plan [SDP201.300035],and site plan [SDP20.1400047]since integral to
infrastructure of the site(Road'A.'). (Rev.2) Partially addressed-discussed these items with
Scott-Collins,Jul-31,or Adam Long,Aug-1. With submittal of R.edi-rock Retaining Wall design
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
on 7/21 (d.7/14/14):i)revise handrail consistent with location in top-course of Redi-rock wall;ii)
landscaping between Walls 1 and 2 should prevent trespass between walls no objection if
eliminate lower wall(Wall 2)handrail if required to meet ARB/other departmental requirements;
iii)restore backslope grade shown in Wall 3 profile views(D,E,F,G,II.,t)of earlier submittal
(Geotechnical design engineer,M.Circeo,maintains drainage Swale unnecessary);iv)revise
proposed tree locations.Wall 3,to ensure min setback—requirement/formula outlined as item#3,
7/23/14 correspondence.Margaret Maliszewski.,ACCD,to Miller Cupp Associates Architects,
P.C./Collins Engineering;and,v)transfer all information from Circeo design titled Redirock
Retaining Walls, Briarwood Commercial,Albemarle County, Virginia,to road plans(2-3 new
sheets). Transfer without revision,addition,or deletion,except by or through Michael R.Circeo.
(Rev.3)Comment addressed.
2. (4 Aug-14 comments#21/30)
VDOT approval is required for improvements to Briarwood Drive and the new intersection design
and location_ (Rev.2/3) Comment acknowledged.
B.VSMP: SWPPP and Pollution Prevention Plan(WP0201300072)
(The Virginia stormwater management program,stormwater pollution prevention plan application and
documents)
1. (4 Aug-14 comment#16,SWM Plan)
New-With respect to SWPPP dated 7/20/14 prepared by Collins Engineering for construction.
activities at Bi arwood Commercial Lots,received 7/24/14:
Registration Statement(General VPDES Permit)latitude/longitude do not match SWPP project
coordinates;please reconcile.(Rev.3) Comment addressed.
Estimate start-finish/installation-removal dates throughout the SWPPP. (Rev.3) Comment addressed.
Revise inspection schedule(p.26). Inspections are required at least once every 10 business days(plus
additional requirements). [Ref 9VAC25-880-70.Part Il. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,F,
Inspections, 2., Inspection Schedule] (Rev.3) Comment addressed.
SWPPP,p.26,identifies one individual responsible for.inspection. Confirm that this individual accepts
sole responsibility for scheduled inspections,reporting,recordkeeping,notification,and for directing
corrective response relating to SWPPP proposed to cover all Briarwood Commercial projects. (Rev.3)
Comment addressed;also,email,FGM to JEA,Wed 8/6/2014 3:52 PM.
EXHIBIT TO SHOW CONCRETE''WASH OUT,.PORTA-JOHNS,AND FUELING AREA(7/21/14):Show concrete wash
out area(not shown). Concrete wash out areas may not drain to storm inlets. Propose treatment for concrete
wash waters, [3 17-404.B.] (Rev.3) Comment addressed.
Show on-site dumpster. Provide treatment(or detention)of dumpster drain water. Dumpster runoff may
contain contaminants that may not discharge freely downslope,to a storm inlet,or to any stream. Provide silt
fence or earthen berm at porta-johns as containment in event of spill. Furnish impermeable containment,a
harrier to infiltration designed to hold the entire volume of stored fuel in event of spill,with freeboard measure
of safety,for each fueling tank shown in the SWPP exhibit. (Rev.3) Comment addressed.
17-404.B.1.a. Wash waters—"Minimize the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing,
wheel wash water,and other wash waters. Wash waters must be treated in a sediment basin or alternative
control that provides equivalent or better treatment prior to discharge.,, Propose treatment for wash water.
(Rev.3) Comment addressed—Wash areas drain to trap or basin.
Construction entrance with wash rack to the north does not drain to a sediment basin;propose treatment.
(Rev.3) Comment addressed.
- Label construction entrance on plan sheets as Paved CE,with wash rack[ref.WP0201300072.E&S
Sequence of Construction Note 3]. Provide detail found at p.27 of ACDSM—link:
http://w-ww.albemarle.org/departrn.ent.a tip?department=cdd&relpage=4447 (Rev.3) Comment addressed.
Transfer SWPPP best management practices to project plan sheets:practices or narrative listed/shown in
SWPPP and on WPO plans should mirror each other. (Rev.3) Comment withdrawn—not necessary in this
instance. See SWPPP dated 8/6/2014 for details re SWPPP fuel spill containment,concrete washout,porta-
John,and paved construction entrance details.
•
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Revise SWPPP.SWPPP plan sheets.and corresponding WPO plan sheets. (Rev.3) Comment addressed
—bullet above.
VSMP SWPPP and Pollution Prevention Plan approved.
C.VSMP: SWPPP: Stormwater Management Plan-Road plan WPO(WPO201300072)
Comments from previous revisions have been removed to help simplify this memo. They are still available for
viewing on the CountyView database system.
(Aug-14 comment#17,SWM Plan)
New-Furnish letter of covenwe,V.DEQ General VPDES Permit. (Rev.3) Comment addressed/Nena
Harrell to GEB/JEA email:Tue 8/12/2014 9:27 AM;Mark Graham to JEA email: Wed 8/13/2014 7:07 PM.
Sara Moore,DEQ EMAIL:Tuesday,August 12,2014 9:03 AM
VSMP SWM plan approved.
Permit coverage under the old 2009 permit remains in effect until you receive coverage under the new 2014
permit.Once you receive your 2014 coverage letter you will be operating under the new 2014 permit(see
9VAC25-880-30.H of the 2014 construction general permit regulation-coverage under the old 2009
construction general permit is administratively continued[i.e.,remains in effect]for operators that
submitted a complete reissuance registration statement).
Also:"The project for Briarwood is under number VAR107199—your coverage under 2009 permit remains
in effect until such time as we[DEO]issue the 2014 permit.
-Sarah Moore„
[August 12,2014 9:03 AM;partial text;EMAIL:Sarah Moore,VDEQ,to Nena Harrell,Applicant/Owner]
D.VSMP: SWPPP: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan-Road plan WPO(WPO201300072)
Comments from previous revisions have been removed to help simplify this memo. They are still available for
viewing on the CountyView database system.
VSMP ESC plan approved.
E. Final Plat
1. Must match road plan.
i ih_1<y"1't)201300(T2.St.1.12014O00fit3-brig 1%,tia)<1-0iil8I4r°o•-:i
A
4101 r-g
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
April 22, 2014
Mr. Christopher Perez
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: Briarwood TIA
Dear Mr. Perez:
We have reviewed the TIA for the Briarwood Development dated 11/20/2013 with revisions dated
2/11/2014 and 3/7/2014 as prepared by Davenport and offer the following comments:
1. The design included in the TIA indicates that the proposed improvements will allow the
intersection of Briarwood Drive and Route 29 to adequately function at build out.
2. In order for the intersection of Briarwood Drive and Route 29 to adequately function,the TIA
indicates that a 7-lane section for Briarwood Drive is needed at build out.
3. A median on Briarwood Drive from Route 29 to Elm Tree Court is proposed in the TIA. There
will be an opening allowing a full access entrance to the South Commercial Access Road. Should
the safety or traffic flow on Briarwood Drive or Route 29 be adversely impacted by the full
access to the South Commercial Access Road,the median will be closed, making the South
Commercial Access Road a right-in/right-out entrance.
Additional trips generated by development outside of Briarwood that will utilize this intersection via
Boulders Road, likely will change the conditions of the Briarwood Development TIA. As a result,
additional improvements to the intersection and/or Route 29 may be necessary to accommodate not only
the new development, but also the Briarwood Development.
If you need additional information or would like to discuss this project further, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
/f1 ,A4k)
Troy Austin,P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING