The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201300179 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2014-10-08� OF AL ,. vIRGI1`IZP 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: 5"' Street Station Plan preparer: Bohler Engineering, [dhines @bohlereng.com] Owner or rep.: New Era Properties [dan @sjcollinsent.com] Plan received date: 16 Dec 2013 Rev. 1: 22 May 2014 Rev.2: 1 Oct 2014 Date of comments: 12 Feb 2014 Rev. 1: 11 June 2014 Rev.2: 7 Oct 2014 Reviewer: Glenn Brooks A. Road and drainage plans (SUB201300179) 1. VDOT approval is required. Rev. 1: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. 2. Bent Creek Road bridge plans and VDOT approval of bridge plans is required. The preliminary drawings that do not reflect actual conditions on sheet 15 are not sufficient. Rev. 1: Provide final plans for the refurbishment of the bridge and abutments, and VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide final plans for the refurbishment of the bridge and abutments, and VDOT approval. Plans for the Arch, footings and endwalls are required. These may also require VDOT approval. Rev. 1: Provide final plans for the arch culvert, footings and endwalls, and VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide final plans for the arch culvert, footings and endwalls. I understand you want to wait to contract final plans for this structure, but I don't believe I have any mechanism to review and approve final plans after a grading permit is issued for this work.. Please address each of the conditions of approval of the special use permit for floodplain fill (SP201200029). Provide a specific plan, profile and layout showing footings on an actual cross - section of the stream at this location, as well as endwalls. 4. Stormwater management for the roadway is required. Portions of the road appear to drain directly to the creek. Rev. 1: More of the roadway needs to be captured and treated before release. It appears the horizontal curve around the north end of the site is untreated. Rev.2: This is not addressed. It may be with the IIC criteria computations in the stormwater management plan, but this is not clear yet. The site cannot be graded as part of the road plan. The site grading is shown on other plans, and there seems to be some confusion on what plans cover which items and when they will occur. Rev. 1: addressed. 6. Retaining wall plans must be included. It does not appear possible to build the roadway without the Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 4 walls. The generic manufacturer's details on sheet 14 are not sufficient. Rev. 1: Provide final structural plans for the retaining walls. Rev.2: Provide final structural plans for the retaining walls. 7. Provide horizontal curvature information. This was not found. A 25 mph speed limit does not appear adequate for this road. A 35mph speed limit seems appropriate as a minimum. Rev. 1: The design speed of 30mph for an urban collector, as indicated in the VDOT Road Design Manual, is acceptable. 8. Planning approval will be required for the landscape plans. Rev. 1: Please refer to comments from Megan Yaniglos. 9. The drainage areas were not provided as indicated on sheets 8A -C. Drainage computations could not be reviewed. Provide drainage computations for the stormsewer, and for the arch culvert crossing. It is not clear why HGL tables are included. All pipes should be designed within open channel flow capacity. Rev. 1: Computations were not found for the arch culvert. Rev.2: Provide the rest of the hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the arch culvert. We talked about the 2yr channel analysis, and a drainage area map is needed. 10. The topography is out of date on the Avon side. Please update the topography. Rev. 1: Please indicate the date and source of existing topography on the plan. 11. The stream buffer line is not legible. Please correct. Regarding the stream buffer; A mitigation plan is required and will need to address; a. The large basin in the stream buffer will need to be moved. See the phase 2 comments. b. There is too much clearing shown for the stormsewer outfalls and pipes, and these will need to be narrowed. c. It is not clear why the streambank is proposed to be graded out at each pipe discharge. This does not appear acceptable. Rev. 1: The mitigation plan is being reviewed separately. 12. The demolition plans could not be deciphered. They appear unnecessary, as the limits of the disturbance on the erosion and sediment control plans will govern, and they are not in this plan set. Rev. 1: no change. 13. Show easements over all drainage outside the right -of -way. Rev. 1: addressed 14. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have low maintenance ground cover specified (not grass). Rev. 1: addressed. 15. Please provide a copy of your critical slopes waiver for the disturbances shown on the plan. Rev. 1: A new zoning ordinance section was approved since this plan was last reviewed. This is the steep slopes overlay district, which will apply to some of the preserved slopes on this site. This will limit the design of retaining walls in this area. Please refer to 18 -30.7. Rev.2: not addressed 16. All proposed entrances must have a standard VDOT designation and be 4% or flatter for 40'. Site entrances must be part of an approved site plan. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 4 Rev. 1: a. Show the profile through the entrance at the bridge. The road appears to come to an abrupt end of grade. b. Show the cross -grade on Avon to be intersected. Rev.2: addressed. 17. Please provide the traffic study for all the turn lane lengths and all the entrances. It seems odd that there are so many entrances with left turn lanes, but no right turn lanes or tapers. Rev. 1: Nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. 18. Specify the guardrail type and end sections. Rev. 1: not found. Note GR types on plan sheet locations. Rev.2: Provide end treatments for guardrail. 19. The signage plan does not appear adequate. More speed limit signs are needed, warning signs for the cross - walks, end -of -state maintenance, street name signs., park- and -ride signage, etc. Rev. 1: Show and label county street name signs according to the County Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance. Note special plates on signals also. Rev.2: addressed. 20. Provide pavement design computations. Rev. 1: addressed. 21. Provide atypical sidewalk detail. Rev. 1: The detail says width varies. I do not find any but 5' sidewalks. 22. A grade transition needs to be provided from Avon Street at the crown tangent of -2 %. Rev. 1: could not determine on drawings. Rev.2: addressed. 23. Specify underdrains and cross - drains on the plans and profiles. Rev. 1: Nothing was found on profiles. UD -4 callouts were on the plan sheets. UD -3 under sidewalk is also appear to be necessary to meet VDOT standards. Rev.2: Need cross drains at cut and fill transitions. 24. The typical sections must specify maximum shoulder and clear zone grades, rather than simply "tie - out". Rev. 1: addressed. 25. Planting strips must be a minimum of 6' wide. Rev. 1: addressed 26. Drainage profiles need to show; a. All utility crossings Rev. 1: addressed. b. material structural classification for pipe. Rev. 1: not found. Rev.2: addressed c. inlet shaping for any drop of 4' or more Rev. 1: not found Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 4 Rev.2 addressed. d. safety slabs in any structure taller than 12' Rev. 1: addressed. Rev.2: addressed. e. flatter grades at discharge. Steep pipes with high velocity discharges should be avoided. Energy dissipation and scour protection are needed. Rev. 1: addressed. 27. The park and ride area will need to follow the county site plan requirements (Code 18 -32, 18- 4.12), using curb and gutter. Rev. 1: addressed. 28. The drainage system from the entrance on Avon cannot simply release above the park and ride lot. Rev. 1: addressed. B. Stormwater Management and Mitigation Plan Plans addressing the road have not been received. Comments on the phase 2 plans and the site plan have been sent previously and seem to cover some of the items shown on this plan. It is not clear where a demarcation lies. Rev. 1: These plans and amendments are being reviewed separately. C. Erosion Control Plan (WPO201300074) Michael Koslow, who had these plans in his review queue, has left the county. After his departure, this plan was found to be beyond the 45 time limit for review, and so it is approved on that technicality. It is noted that the limits do not include the road. There will also need to be an approved mitigation plan before a permit can be issued. Rev. 1: These plans and amendments are being reviewed separately. File: E1_rp,esc,swm,fsp_GEB _ template.doc