HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400092 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2014-10-31AI,�
s-
a7i
vtr�;tN�A
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. 1)
Rev.2
Rev.3
Rev. 4
Rev. 5
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
Rev.2
Old Trail Village Blocks 28 & 29B (SDP201400009,
WP0201400004, SUB201400092)
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. [bledbetter @roudabush.com,
cmulligan @roudabush.com]
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC
[dave @oldtrailvillage. com]
11 February 2014
9 June 2014 (Road Plans /SUB201400092)
12 June 2014 (Site/WPO)
29 July 2014
26 Aug 2014
29 Aug 2014
10 Oct 2014 (Site/Road); Minor rev: 29- Oct -14
21 March 2014
23 July 2014
7 Aug 2014
Rev.3 26 Aug 2014
Rev. 4 15 Sep 2014
Rev. 5 20 Oct 2014 (Site /Road); rev 21- Oct -14; rev 31- Oct -14 - Approved
Reviewer: Max Greene (initial)
John Anderson (Rev2; 12 -Sep 2014 road plans; Rev5)
Glenn Brooks (this was taken from John's queue for an accelerated
review at the request of Dave Brockman to Doug Walker)
This is an updated memo for erosion control and stormwater plans received today (26 Aug). The
VSMP plans are approved and you can proceed with bonding and grading permits. A new road plan
was not received, although we discussed many of those comments in our meeting of last Thursday,
the 21 s` °, and they should be easily resolved. The road plan will need to be approved and bonded
before final plats can be recommended for approval.
Site plan (SDP201400009):
Approval to Planning can be recommended for the site plan when other final plans are approved.
Street and Utility, drainage plans (SUB210400092):
Street and utility plans were not received with revision 2, however these items were reviewed on
the site plan, assuming these are the same. A specific street /road plan is required for bonds and
plat approvals.
1. VDOT approval is required. (Rev. 5 — Oct31) Comment addressed. VDOT approval: 31-
Oct-14.
2. Remove the grade breaks in the profiles. Provide vertical curves at these locations. At
entrances, a reduced K value of 5 to 10 can be used to transition from the intersected cross-
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
grade.
Belgrove Rd.; 10 +00 and 14 +05 Hazel Grove Rd.; 10 +16 and 14 +96
Golf View Dr. 17 +50 Birchen Dr. 10 +00 and 13 +27
Ashlar Ave. 10 +16 Birchin Ln. 12 +50
Birchen Ct. start, middle, end
(Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. This is County Engineer request. Provide vertical
curves (PVC -PVI -PVT). Although grade breaks are altered graphically, design relies on
CG -11 detail. Design assumes specifics of detail ensure suitable outcome. At entrances, a
reduced K value of 5 to 10 can be used to transition from the intersected cross - grade. For
example: curve L =21', sta. 10 +16.00, Ashlar Ave (K =10) is acceptable. Please provide
vertical curves at these locations:
Belgrove Rd: 10+16.00 @Mans: - z.o8/ +1 %* and 14 +55 Hazel Grove Rd: 10 +16 and 15 +20
Golf View Dr. Ext: 17 +50, if existing not -0.9% Birchen Dr: 13 +11 and EITHER
10 +10.00 oR 10 +16.00, depending on Belgrove Street street -side parking ( @transition: -
2.08/ +1.2 %)*
Ashlar Ave: 10 +16 and tie to O.T., if slopes 7� Birchen Ln: 12 +50
Birchen Ct: start, middle, end Addle Hill: 10 +16.00 and 17 +50.00
* Label station on profile (Rev. 5) Comment withdrawn; request for (a reduced K
value) vertical curve at intersecting streets applies to future design.
NEW
a. Show SLOPE on profile, Addle Hill Rd, sta. 12 +00.00 - sta. 16 +87.50. K is shown for
4 vertical curves over this interval, but slope is missing. If use K, slopes appear to be:
-5.28% (sta. 12 +00.00 -13 +00.00); +1.12% (sta. 13 +00.00 -15 +75.00); -0.81% (sta.
15 +75.00 -16 +25.00); 2.5% f0.1, rounding error (sta. 16 +25.00 -17 +50.00 / 2.586 %).
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
b. PVTs fall on intersecting streets. Ref /revise: Belgrove St., sta. 14 +55 (7.19' to CL);
Addle Hill Rd -Golf Dr. Int., sta. 17+50.00 (8.00' to CL). Revise design. (Rev. 5)
Comments addressed.
c. Hazel Grove Lane Profile relocate VC data, show above profile since it obscures
storm line data below profile. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
d. Labels: Birchin Drive Pvt. Alley profile references Belgrove Road; revise label to read
Belgrove Street. Addle Hill Road profile reference Int. Old Trail Drive; revise to read
Int. Golf Drive. Addle Hill profile references Hazel Grove Road; revise label to read
Hazel Grove Lane. (Rev. 5) Comments addressed.
e. Show negative ( -) sign for NEGATIVE slopes; there are inconsistencies with profiles,
except Golf View Drive Ext. (Rev. 5) Comment substantively addressed.
3. Please provide drainage profiles for the entire stormwater system. (Combining
some of these with the road profiles is difficult to read.) (Rev. 4) Comment
partially addressed. Need profiles for: pipe 145, between inlets 144 -146; for
pipe 120, between inlets 113 and 121. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
4. Please revise inlet design and computations. (Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. -REF NOTE, BELOW.
(i) Per VDOT Drainage Manual use 0.1 % grade to check curb spread flanking sag inlets. -REF NOTE,
BELOW.
(ii) All spreads must be below "'h travel lane width + gutter width" per VDOT DM table 9 -1.
includes inlets that you have labeled temporary. If overland flow is a problem, stub out a culvert or inlet
in the field off the road. -REF NOTE, BELOW.
(iii) If no inlets are to be provided in smaller roads and alleys, check spreads near the exits of each
lane /alley. -REF NOTE, BELOW. Account for roll -top curbing. Check capture. -REF NOTE, BELOW. Limit flow
into intersected streets. Show roll -top transitions at end of radii. (Rev. 4) Comment partially
addressed. Sheet 5 shows transition at inlet 109, but transitions to CG -6 not shown at all relevant
locations. A line that shows how and where roll -top curb transitions to CG -6 is required to aid review
and especially construction. (Rev. 5) Partially addressed; ref follow -up comment immediately below.
NOTE: Sheet 6, hydraulic grade (HG) line /inlet computations /storm sewer design: (Rev. 5) Comments
below, addressed, but as follow -up, many L /L,, ratios (inlet computation 6.5 in/hr. table) are « 10. RGA
emails (20/21- Oct -14) share design perspective, but ratios as low as 0. 1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 are unacceptable. Inlet
design, for the moment, poses questions that, unless L/L, ratios are adjusted to 0.8 (Min), are vexing. 0.8 is
arbitrary to a degree, yet relates to VDOT Design Manual, Appendix 913-1, inlet computations (LD -204).
I WTA
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
(Rev. 5 — Oct31) Comment addressed. —Ref. ACCD /JA email: Fri 10/24/2014 10:42 AM.
a. Check/revise for consistency: inlet /outlet H2O elevations. If H2O elev. is reported as x at
location y, it should appear as a single (identical) value throughout the HG table. For example:
str. 154 upstream elev. = 677.85' while str. 152 outlet elev. (same point) = 678.00'. 0.15' may
appear slight, but compare str. 105A, upstream elev. = 686.76' with str. 107 outlet elev. (same
point) = 689.25', a 2.49' difference. Please revise HG data such that a single location has a
single H2O elevation. Explanations, though helpful, do not affect request. Furnishing requested
revisions speeds approval. [Last: str. 103 and 115 route to str. 113: 3 elev. given for this one point. ]
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
b. Inlet computations -4/6.5 in/hr: All future Old Trail Village (including blocks 12 and 15) inlet
computations must be submitted on LD -204 —ref VDOT Drainage Manual, Appendix 9B -1.
There is no acceptable alternative. For this project (blocks 28/29B), for both 4.0 and 6.5 in/hr
events (both tables):
i) Check/revise for accuracy: Qincr + Quo =Qt. For example: Inlet 105A (4in/hr), 0.29
+0.25 =0.47; inlet 109, 1.39 + 0 = 1.04; inlet 103, 2.06 + 0.18 = 1.72. All values will be
closely reviewed —ref. VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.5.3.1.1, step 16. (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
ii) Include type inlet (column 2, LD -204) for every inlet, even if shown elsewhere. (Rev.
5) Comment addressed.
iii) Delete (extraneous) columns: DA GUTR, C GUTR, CA GUTR —these values are not used,
and do not appear on form LD -204. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
iv) 4 in/hr table: column headings and values for GUTR SPREAD and PVmTSPREAD ATSAG
(FT) for sag inlet locations are indecipherable. I cannot establish how far spread extends
onto paved surface, whether gutter pan is included, or if flow from left and right of sag
is included. The reason for this is that unique column headings and unique table format
are used: LD -204 eliminates confusion. Table does not establish that spreads are below
"'h travel lane width + gutter width" per VDOT DM table 9 -1. (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
v) DEPTH /H FT is dimensionless (revise heading, del. FT). Values are inaccurate. For
example: Inlet 109 (4in/hr), 0.19 =0.46 =0.41, not 0.14; inlet 107 (4in/hr),
0.17 =0.46 =0.37, not 0.11. Item should be carefully checked in future. (Rev. 5)
Comment addressed.
C. Storm Sewer Design (10 -3r vs. 100 -yr Frequency tables): Compare drainage areas; they should not
change. 10 -yr or 100 -yr events do not affect DA — revise tables. Check calcs for accuracy.
(Compare DA, 10 v. 100 -yr: 109 -107; 107 -105A, 103 -113, 125- 123...156- U.B.Pond) (Rev. 5)
Comment addressed.
d. Storm sewer design: 156A — Sediment Basin runoff cfs = 63.30, but capacity 36" DIA line listed
as 56.66 cfs. Pipes must flow within capacity; revise design for this section of storm sewer.
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed; ref. 10 -yr design storm (review error).
e. Recommend increase slope of pipe 101 (point 100 -Ex. 13) since slopes downstream of Ex. 13
are well below design minimum of 0.50% (0.30 %, Ex. 13 -Ex. 11; 0.41 %, Ex. 11 -Ex. 3). (Rev. 5)
Comment addressed; physical constraints prevent adjustment.
f. Labels: 100 -yr table — revise labels to read 156 to U.B. Pond; 132 to 154. (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
Hazel Lane appears to require no- parking on one side, which should be indicated by signs.
A 29' width would negate the need for this. (VDOT Road Design Manual, App. B, table 1).
(Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
6. New: sheet 7 leader line for label 101 points to inlet str. #100, but 101 is a pipe. Please
revise. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
7. New: sheet 7 Use different line weight or labels to indicate existing storm sewer lines
on Baywick Circle, Golf Drive, and Golf View Drive —see existing storm sewer line
type /weight at Golf View Drive and Addle Hill Rd as a distinguishing example. (Rev.
5) Comment addressed.
8. New: sheet 13/14 —Str #111 to Str #105 profile /vertical grid (Elev.) labels do not match;
Str #125 to Str #123 — profile /vertical grid line label (Elev.) mismatch, rt/lft side of fig.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
9. New: HGL —Flow not contained within pipe 112. Ref inlet sta. 103: upstream elev.
684.63' while elev. pipe 112: Inv + 18" DIA = 684.55'. This condition may resolve
with requested revisions (Note a., above), but if not, please revise to ensure 10 -yr flow
is contained within pipe 112 (sta. 103 elev. < 684.55'). (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
10. New: Include VDOT IS -1 detail (2008 Road and Bridge Stds, Section 100, Standard Method
for Shaping Manhole and Inlet Inverts, p. 106.08). Image, below:
I¢,
SHAPE i0 F:N
f
NT OF
_A GE'S. Ni OF
LARGEST ppE,
r�
SHAPE TO
CF APE
I
Tp INVERT
J
OF OUTLET ARE
OF OUTLET PfE
SECTION A -A
PPE pAARTEFS riEN
METHOD OF TREATMENT IN DROP INLETS
[AFFERENT SAES f)F
,S ME Fl4C-0IllTEAED.
�y
NOTES
SHA NG CF 1AMHOA AND HLET PAR -5 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
1
,
TH5 CRAWNC IS TO APPLY TO THCSF S- RXTURE5 5PECIFED
ON FLM5 OR WHERE INVERT OF PIPE 5 ABOVE NVERT Of
} SLOPE TO DRA�1
TO INVERT 6
STRUC -.RE.
�'
OUTLE7 NPE
Ai0I IS TO f1P AORNP❑ CCNS-R -CTFA
H A OR
N A(INwERTN CE WITH N^'L,CAELE SCRIOR I OR SCCi Si_ T OF AG.
IN ADCO A
THE INVERT SIIAPIVC a5 EETRLEO OV IS TI CCL"S Cf A
CUNL
-CLASS PORTLAND C14 XCEPT �T 25W F �NSE AGGREGATE TC CLASS A! CH
0.K5 4 IN DIAM THAT ZO< OF IST OF AC,(AiEGATE MAY IC
W E is N OIAAIETCR AV} C0.0 LI STONE OTO.EN ]RICK,
.NNEN OONCRL:L GTi HHa FLN CWlCRE IL
SHALL DE LEFT 500TH OT NEAN$ Of H.WD }Rqw =1.RC. 404=
�
I
- -
� THE CWI;SE AGGREGATE SHALL REWM EKPOSE7.
a
OCY TAL$ GP INVERT $HAPNO AS "WN HCRL011 APX FOR E %WADI!
PURPOSES OALY, EACH Ak%"%E CR DROP .LET IS T-0 SE SHAFF11
IMPAOUWAY TO BEST FIT TFE PARTICULAR INLET 40 -0UTL7
CONFIGl1RATL7N AND FLOW LINES_
SECTION 3-9
PLAN
METHOD OF TREATMENT IN (MANHOLES
t"D�r
RD.w AND eaI'eE EVISION
STANDARD
METHOD OF SHAPING
MANHOLE & INLET INVERTS
RE°��
SHEET 7 OF 7
DA
PE4190N GATE
' +i'.GINIA 7EPMTKENT OF iRAR5a7RTA 70V
106.08
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:00 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments.
[ WP0201400004 comments included with prior letters available in County -View; removed since addressed. ]
SUB201400092 -OTV Blocks 28 29B- 103114- revrev5
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
CWpeper Virgin a 227 +n
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
October 31, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB- 2014 -00092 Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 & 29 Road Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plans for Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 & 29B dated January 31, 2013
with revisions dated June 6, 2014, July 29, 2014, August 20, 2014, and October 10, 2014 as
submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed.
2. VDOT has no objection to the approval of the road plans as submitted.
3. Prior to commencement of construction activities, there will need to be a pre - construction
conference for this project. Please contact this office at least 48 hours prior to a
requested pre - construction conference to schedule this meeting.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1661 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
October 29, 2014
Mr. John Anderson
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SUB - 2014 -00092 Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 & 29 Road Plans
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the road plans for Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 & 29B dated January 31, 2013
with revisions dated June 6, 2014, July 29, 2014, August 20, 2014, and October 10, 2014 as
submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the following comments:
1. On Sheet 15 of 22, the thickness of the BM -25 for Ashlar Avenue and Golf View Drive
in the Road Classification Schedule table does not match the thicknesses shown in the
typical section.
2. We need two signed copies of these plans with the above comment corrected.
3. All other prior review comments have been adequately addressed.
If you need additional information concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
it-
-rA 1P
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
AI,�
s-
a7i
vtr�;tN�A
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 Blocks 28 & 29B (SDP201400009,
WP0201400004, SUB201400092)
Plan preparer:
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. [bledbetter @roudabush.com,
cmulligan @roudabush.com]
Owner or rep.:
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC
[dave @oldtrailvillage. com]
Plan received date:
11 February 2014
(Rev. 1)
9 June 2014 (Road Plans /SUB201400092)
(Rev. 1)
12 June 2014 (Site/WPO)
Rev.2
29 July 2014
Rev.3
26 Aug 2014
Rev. 4
29 Aug 2014
Rev. 5
10 Oct 2014 (Site/Road)
Date of comments:
21 March 2014
(Rev. 1)
23 July 2014
Rev.2
7 Aug 2014
Rev.3
26 Aug 2014
Rev. 4
15 Sep 2014
Rev. 5
20 Oct 2014 (Site /Road); rev 21- Oct -14
Reviewer:
Max Greene (initial)
John Anderson (Rev2; 12 -Sep 2014 road plans; Rev5)
Glenn Brooks (this was taken from John's queue for an accelerated
review at the request of Dave Brockman to Doug Walker)
This is an updated memo for erosion control and stormwater plans received today (26 Aug). The
VSMP plans are approved and you can proceed with bonding and grading permits. A new road plan
was not received, although we discussed many of those comments in our meeting of last Thursday,
the 21 s` °, and they should be easily resolved. The road plan will need to be approved and bonded
before final plats can be recommended for approval.
Site plan (SDP201400009):
Approval to Planning can be recommended for the site plan when other final plans are approved.
Street and Utility, drainage plans (SUB210400092):
Street and utility plans were not received with revision 2, however these items were reviewed on
the site plan, assuming these are the same. A specific street /road plan is required for bonds and
plat approvals.
1. VDOT approval is required.
2. Remove the grade breaks in the profiles. Provide vertical curves at these locations. At
entrances, a reduced K value of 5 to 10 can be used to transition from the intersected cross -
grade.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
Belgrove Rd.; 10 +00 and 14 +05 Hazel Grove Rd.; 10 +16 and 14 +96
Golf View Dr. 17 +50 Birchen Dr. 10 +00 and 13 +27
Ashlar Ave. 10 +16 Birchin Ln. 12 +50
Birchen Ct. start, middle, end
(Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. This is County Engineer request. Provide vertical
curves (PVC -PVI -PVT). Although grade breaks are altered graphically, design relies on
CG -11 detail. Design assumes specifics of detail ensure suitable outcome. At entrances, a
reduced K value of 5 to 10 can be used to transition from the intersected cross - grade. For
example: curve L =21', sta. 10 +16.00, Ashlar Ave (K =10) is acceptable. Please provide
vertical curves at these locations:
Belgrove Rd: 10+16.00 @tuns: - 2.08/ +1.1 %* and 14 +55 Hazel Grove Rd: 10 +16 and 15 +20
Golf View Dr. Ext: 17 +50, if existing not -0.9% Birchen Dr: 13 +11 and EITHER
10 +10.00 oR 10 +16.00, depending on Belgrove Street street -side parking ( @transition: -
2.08/ +1.2 %)*
Ashlar Ave: 10 +16 and tie to O.T., if slopes 7� Birchen Ln: 12 +50
Birchen Ct: start, middle, end Addle Hill: 10 +16.00 and 17 +50.00
* Label station on profile (Rev. 5) Comment withdrawn; request for (a reduced K
value) vertical curve at intersecting streets applies to future design.
NEW
a. Show SLOPE on profile, Addle Hill Rd, sta. 12 +00.00 - sta. 16 +87.50. K is shown for
4 vertical curves over this interval, but slope is missing. If use K, slopes appear to be:
-5.28% (sta. 12 +00.00 -13 +00.00); +1.12% (sta. 13 +00.00 -15 +75.00); -0.81% (sta.
15 +75.00 -16 +25.00); 2.5% f0.1, rounding error (sta. 16 +25.00 -17 +50.00 / 2.586 %).
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
b. PVTs fall on intersecting streets. Ref /revise: Belgrove St., sta. 14 +55 (7.19' to CL);
Addle Hill Rd -Golf Dr. Int., sta.17 +50.00 (8.00' to CL). Revise design. (Rev. 5)
Comments addressed.
c. Hazel Grove Lane Profile — relocate VC data, show above profile since it obscures
storm line data below profile. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
d. Labels: Birchin Drive Pvt. Alley profile references Belgrove Road; revise label to read
Belgrove Street. Addle Hill Road profile reference Int. Old Trail Drive; revise to read
Int. Golf Drive. Addle Hill profile references Hazel Grove Road; revise label to read
Hazel Grove Lane. (Rev. 5) Comments addressed.
e. Show negative ( -) sign for NEGATIVE slopes; there are inconsistencies with profiles,
except Golf View Drive Ext. (Rev. 5) Comment substantively addressed.
3. Please provide drainage profiles for the entire stormwater system. (Combining
some of these with the road profiles is difficult to read.) (Rev. 4) Comment
partially addressed. Need profiles for: pipe 145, between inlets 144 -146; for
pipe 120, between inlets 113 and 121. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
4. Please revise inlet design and computations. (Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. —REF NOTE, BELOW.
(i) Per VDOT Drainage Manual use 0.1 % grade to check curb spread flanking sag inlets. —REF NOTE,
BELOW.
(ii) All spreads must be below "' /z travel lane width + gutter width" per VDOT DM table 9 -1.
includes inlets that you have labeled temporary. If overland flow is a problem, stub out a culvert or inlet
in the field off the road. -REF NOTE, BELOW.
(iii) If no inlets are to be provided in smaller roads and alleys, check spreads near the exits of each
lane /alley. -REF NOTE, BELOW. Account for roll -top curbing. Check capture. -REF NOTE, BELOW. Limit flow
into intersected streets. Show roll -top transitions at end of radii. (Rev. 4) Comment partially
addressed. Sheet 5 shows transition at inlet 109, but transitions to CG -6 not shown at all relevant
locations. A line that shows how and where roll -top curb transitions to CG -6 is required to aid review
and especially construction. (Rev. 5) Partially addressed; ref follow -up comment immediately below.
NOTE: Sheet 6, hydraulic grade (HG) line /inlet computations /storm sewer design: (Rev. 5) Comments
below, addressed, but as follow -a, many L/Lt, ratios (inlet computation 6.5 in/hr. table) are « 1.0. RGA
emails (20/21- Oct -14) share design perspective, but ratios as low as 0. 1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 are unacceptable. Inlet
design, for the moment, poses questions that, unless L/Lt ratios are adjusted to 0.8 (Min), are vexing. 0.8 is
arbitrary to a degree, yet relates to VDOT Design Manual, Appendix 913-1, inlet computations (LD -204).
a. Check/revise for consistency: inlet /outlet H2O elevations. If H2O elev. is reported as x at
NEW
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
location y, it should appear as a single (identical) value throughout the HG table. For example:
str. 154 upstream elev. = 677.85' while str. 152 outlet elev. (same point) = 678.00'. 0.15' may
appear slight, but compare str. 105A, upstream elev. = 686.76' with str. 107 outlet elev. (same
point) = 689.25', a 2.49' difference. Please revise HG data such that a single location has a
single HZO elevation. Explanations, though helpful, do not affect request. Furnishing requested
revisions speeds approval. [Last: str. 103 and 115 route to str. 113: 3 elev. given for this one point.]
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
b. Inlet computations -4/6.5 in/hr: All future Old Trail Village (including blocks 12 and 15) inlet
computations must be submitted on LD -204 —ref VDOT Drainage Manual, Appendix 9B -1.
There is no acceptable alternative. For this project (blocks 28/29B), for both 4.0 and 6.5 in/hr
events (both tables):
i) Check/revise for accuracy: Qincr + Quo =Qt. For example: Inlet 105A (4in/hr), 0.29
+0.25 =0.47; inlet 109, 1.39 + 0 = 1.04; inlet 103, 2.06 + 0.18 = 1.72. All values will be
closely reviewed —ref. VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.5.3.1.1, step 16. (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
ii) Include type inlet (column 2, LD -204) for every inlet, even if shown elsewhere. (Rev.
5) Comment addressed.
iii) Delete (extraneous) columns: DA GUTR, C GUTR, CA GUTR —these values are not used,
and do not appear on form LD -204. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
iv) 4 in/hr table: column headings and values for GUTR SPREAD and PVmTSPREADATSAG
(FT) for sag inlet locations are indecipherable. I cannot establish how far spread extends
onto paved surface, whether gutter pan is included, or if flow from left and right of sag
is included. The reason for this is that unique column headings and unique table format
are used: LD -204 eliminates confusion. Table does not establish that spreads are below
"'/z travel lane width + gutter width" per VDOT DM table 9 -1. (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
v) DEPTHIH FT is dimensionless (revise heading, del. FT). Values are inaccurate. For
example: Inlet 109 (4in/hr), 0.19 =0.46 =0.41, not 0.14; inlet 107 (4in/hr),
0.17 =0.46 =037, not 0.11. Item should be carefully checked in future. (Rev. 5)
Comment addressed.
C. Storm Sewer Design (10 -3r vs. 100 -31 Frequency tables): Compare drainage areas; they should not
change. 10 -yr or 100 -yr events do not affect DA — revise tables. Check calcs for accuracy.
(Compare DA, 10 v. 100 -yr: 109 -107; 107 -105A, 103 -113, 125- 123...156- U.B.Pond) (Rev. 5)
Comment addressed.
d. Storm sewer design: 156A — Sediment Basin runoff cfs = 63.30, but capacity 36" DIA line listed
as 56.66 cfs. Pipes must flow within capacity; revise design for this section of storm sewer.
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed; ref. 10 -yr design storm (review error).
e. Recommend increase slope of pipe 101 (point 100 -Ex. 13) since slopes downstream of Ex. 13
are well below design minimum of 0.50% (0.30 %, Ex. 13 -Ex. 11; 0.41 %, Ex. 11 -Ex. 3). (Rev. 5)
Comment addressed; physical constraints prevent adjustment.
f. Labels: 100 -yr table — revise labels to read 156 to U.B. Pond; 132 to 154. (Rev. 5) Comment
addressed.
5. Hazel Lane appears to require no- parking on one side, which should be indicated by signs.
A 29' width would negate the need for this. (VDOT Road Design Manual, App. B, table 1).
(Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
6. New: sheet 7 — leader line for label 101 points to inlet str. #100, but 101 is a pipe. Please
revise. (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
7. New: sheet 7 Use different line weight or labels to indicate existing storm sewer lines
on Baywick Circle, Golf Drive, and Golf View Drive —see existing storm sewer line
type /weight at Golf View Drive and Addle Hill Rd as a distinguishing example. (Rev.
5) Comment addressed.
8. New: sheet 13/14 Str #111 to Str #105 profile /vertical grid (Elev.) labels do not match;
Str #125 to Str #123 — profile /vertical grid line label (Elev.) mismatch, rt/lft side of fig.
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
9. New: HGL —Flow not contained within pipe 112. Ref inlet sta. 103: upstream elev.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
684.63' while elev. pipe 112: Inv + 18" DIA = 684.55'. This condition may resolve
with requested revisions (Note a., above), but if not, please revise to ensure 10 -yr flow
is contained within pipe 112 (sta. 103 elev. < 684.55'). (Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
10. New: Include VDOT IS -1 detail (2008 Road and Bridge Stds, Section 100, Standard Method
for Shaping Manhole and Inlet Inverts, p. 106.08). Image, below:
,s-T
SHAPE TO ELEVATMN
OF W -POINT OF
LARGESY PPE.
SLOPF ` DRNN TO NYFF.-
OF G4 -LET PIPE
SECTION A -A
METHOD OF TREATMENT IN DROP INLF -S
NOTES 1
VOPNG OF NMIICLE IRO INLET hVERTS N ACCORDANCE WITH
THI5 ORAYFG 15 TO APPLY TO THWE 57F=TDRE5 SPEWED 1 SLOPE TO DRAW
ON PLANS OR WHERE INVERT OF PPE 5 AMWE F VERT OF TO INVERT OF
STRUCTURE. CNTLLT PIPE
IN ACOE A ORCP NLEi IS TO fE ■CmEO OR KCIAL VCTEC �
N II INVERT WITH S DETAILED LE ST7WMV CfU SOON D OF A h
THE NVERT E ENT N QETALEO NEREON IS TO CCLAST 3 A iT
CLASS C14l EXCEPT LHAT 2 F ux OARSE AG G TOE M AS [Xf
CLASS CI EACDPi THAT 45N OF COARSE AGGREGATE NAF C - T
LP TO iC N DIAMETER OR MW EN COT OF STONE, f. THE BRICN,
WOKEN CdICIIETL d1 dE01RH LONLHL IL NLOGN. 7RL SIAI /KX
SHRLL BIC LEF7 SNOGTH BY MEAN$ O= AMD IROL[LLNG. NOW [ I
CF TFE'COAFSE AGGREGATE SHALL REUAN ENPOSEO.
OCTAL$ OF NVERT $HAPINO A$ AgWN •F 13GR ARE FOR ".m — .
PMPO5ES My. EACN —HOLE CR DROP NLET IS TO BE SHAFFD
NONWA -LY TO BEST FFT TFE PARTGULAR INLET AM OUTLET
-0DCEIGLRATION AND FLOW urcx SECTION B -B
PLAN
METHOD OF TREATMENT IN MANHOLES
STANDARD METHOD OF SHAPING SPLPFI(AT 1
ROAD AND 91AIDGE STANDARDS REFEREIlCE
SHEET 1 OF 1 REYN9;; DATE MANHOLE & INLET INVERTS
ws
CGS.OE VNGINIA OEP!'RTLENT OF TRNISPORTAT OV
(Rev. 5) Comment addressed.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:00 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments.
[ WP0201400004 comments included with prior letters available in County -View; removed since addressed. ]
File: SUB201400092 -OTV Blocks 28 & 29B- 102014 -revs
�pF A�
am
vr�N1Q
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 Blocks 28 & 29B (SDP201400009,
WP0201400004, SUB201400092)
Plan preparer:
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. [bledbetter @roudabush.com,
cmulligan @roudabush.com]
Owner or rep.:
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC
[dave @oldtrailvil lage. com]
Plan received date:
11 February 2014
(Rev. 1)
9 June 2014 (Road Plans /SUB201400092)
(Rev. 1)
12 June 2014 (Site/WPO)
Rev.2
29 July 2014
Rev.3
26 Aug 2014
Rev. 4
29 Aug 2014
Date of comments:
21 March 2014
(Rev. 1)
23 July 2014
Rev.2
7 Aug 2014
Rev.3
26 Aug 2014
Rev. 4
15 Sep 2014
Reviewer:
Max Greene (initial)
John Anderson (Rev2; 12 -Sep 2014 road plans)
Glenn Brooks (this was taken from John's queue for an accelerated
review at the request of Dave Brockman to Doug Walker)
This is an updated memo for erosion control and stormwater plans received today (26 Aug). The
VSMP plans are approved and you can proceed with bonding and grading permits. A new road plan
was not received, although we discussed many of those comments in our meeting of last Thursday,
the 21't', and they should be easily resolved. The road plan will need to be approved and bonded
before final plats can be recommended for approval.
Site plan (SDP201400009):
Approval to Planning can be recommended for the site plan when other final plans are approved.
Street and Utility, drainage plans (SUB210400092):
Street and utility plans were not received with revision 2, however these items were reviewed on
the site plan, assuming these are the same. A specific street /road plan is required for bonds and
plat approvals.
1. VDOT approval is required.
2. Remove the grade breaks in the profiles. Provide vertical curves at these locations. At
entrances, a reduced K value of 5 to 10 can be used to transition from the intersected
cross - grade.
Belgrove Rd.; 10 +00 and 14 +05 Hazel Grove Rd.; 10 +16 and 14 +96
Golf View Dr. 17 +50 Birchen Dr. 10 +00 and 13 +27
Ir;l 111
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
Ashlar Ave. 10 +16 Birchin Ln. 12 +50
Birchen Ct. start, middle, end
(Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. This is County Engineer request. Provide vertical
curves (PVC -PVI -PVT). Although grade breaks are altered graphically, design relies on
CG -11 detail. Design assumes specifics of detail ensure suitable outcome. At entrances, a
reduced K value of 5 to 10 can be used to transition from the intersected cross - grade. For
example: curve L =21', sta. 10 +16.00, Ashlar Ave (K =10) is acceptable. Please provide
vertical curves at these locations:
Belgrove Rd: 10+16.00 @trans: - 2.08 / +1.�10�a* and 14 +55 Hazel Grove Rd: 10 +16 and 15 +20
Golf View Dr. Ext: 17 +50, if existing not -0.9% Birchen Dr: 13 +11 and EITHER
10 +10.00 ox 10 +16.00, depending on Belgrove Street street -side parking ( @transition: -
2.08/ +1.2 %)*
Ashlar Ave: 10 +16 and tie to 0. T., if slopes Birchen Ln: 12 +50
Birchen Ct: start, middle, end Addle Hill: 10 +16.00 and 17 +50.00
Label station on profile
a. Show SLOPE on profile, Addle Hill Rd, sta. 12 +00.00 - sta. 16 +87.50. K is shown for
4 vertical curves over this interval, but slope is missing. If use K, slopes appear to be:
-5.28% (sta. 12 +00.00 -13 +00.00); +1.12% (sta. 13 +00.00 -15 +75.00); -0.81% (sta.
15 +75.00 -16 +25.00); 2.5% f0.1, rounding error (sta. 16 +25.00 -17 +50.00 / 2.586 %).
b. PVTs fall on intersecting streets. Ref. /revise: Belgrove St., sta. 14 +55 (7.19' to CL);
Addle Hill Rd -Golf Dr. Int., sta. 17+50.00 (8.00' to CL). Revise design.
c. Hazel Grove Lane Profile - relocate VC data, show above profile since it obscures
storm line data below profile.
d. Labels: Birchin Drive Pvt. Alley profile references Belgrove Road; revise label to read
Belgrove Street. Addle Hill Road profile reference Int. Old Trail Drive; revise to read
Int. Golf Drive. Addle Hill profile references Hazel Grove Road; revise label to read
Hazel Grove Lane.
e. Show negative ( -) sign for NEGATIVE slopes; there are inconsistencies with profiles,
except Golf View Drive Ext.
3. Please provide drainage profiles for the entire stormwater system. (Combining
some of these with the road profiles is difficult to read.) (Rev. 4) Comment
partially addressed. Need profiles for: pipe 145, between inlets 144 -146; for
pipe 120, between inlets 113 and 121.
4. Please revise inlet design and computations. (Rev. 4) Comment not addressed. -REF NOTE, BELOW.
(i) Per VDOT Drainage Manual use 0.1 % grade to check curb spread flanking sag inlets. -REF NOTE,
BELOW.
(ii) All spreads must be below "'/2 travel lane width + gutter width" per VDOT DM table 9 -1.
includes inlets that you have labeled temporary. If overland flow is a problem, stub out a culvert or inlet
in the field off the road. -REF NOTE, BELOW.
(iii) If no inlets are to be provided in smaller roads and alleys, check spreads near the exits of each
lane /alley. -REF NOTE, BELOW. Account for roll -top curbing. Check capture. -REF NOTE, BELOW. Limit flow
into intersected streets. Show roll -top transitions at end of radii. (Rev. 4) Comment partially
addressed. Sheet 5 shows transition at inlet 109, but transitions to CG -6 not shown at all relevant
locations. A line that shows how and where roll -top curb transitions to CG -6 is required to aid review
and especially construction.
NOTE: Sheet 6, hydraulic grade (HG) line /inlet computations /storm sewer design:
a. Check/revise for consistency: inlet /outlet H2O elevations. If H2O elev. is reported as x at
location y, it should appear as a single (identical) value throughout the HG table. For example:
str. 154 upstream elev. = 677.85' while str. 152 outlet elev. (same point) = 678.00'. 0.15' may
appear slight, but compare str. 105A, upstream elev. = 686.76' with str. 107 outlet elev. (same
point) = 689.25', a 2.49' difference. Please revise HG data such that a single location has a
single H2O elevation. Explanations, though helpful, do not affect request. Furnishing requested
revisions speeds approval. [Last: str. 103 and 115 route to str. 113: 3 elev. given for this one point.]
b. Inlet computations -4/6.5 in/hr: All future Old Trail Village (including blocks 12 and 15) inlet
computations must be submitted on LD -204 -ref VDOT Drainage Manual, Appendix 913-1.
There is no acceptable alternative. For this project (blocks 28/29B), for both 4.0 and 6.5 in/hr
NEW
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
events (both tables):
i) Check/revise for accuracy: Q,,,�r + Quo =Qt. For example: Inlet 105A (4in/hr), 0.29
+0.25 =0.47; inlet 109, 1.39 + 0 = 1.04; inlet 103, 2.06 + 0.18 = 1.72. All values will be
closely reviewed —ref. VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.5.3.1.1, step 16.
ii) Include type inlet (column 2, LD -204) for every inlet, even if shown elsewhere.
iii) Delete (extraneous) columns: DA GUTR, C GUTR, CA GUTR —these values are not used,
and do not appear on form LD -204.
iv) 4 in/hr table: column headings and values for GUTR SPREAD and PVMT SPREAD AT SAG
(FT) for saginlet locations are indecipherable. I cannot establish how far spread extends
onto paved surface, whether gutter pan is included, or if flow from left and right of sag
is included. The reason for this is that unique column headings and unique table format
are used: LD -204 eliminates confusion. Table does not establish that spreads are below
"'h travel lane width + gutter width" per VDOT DM table 9 -1.
v) DE'PTH/HFT is dimensionless (revise heading, del. FT). Values are inaccurate. For
example: Inlet 109 (4in/hr), 0.19 =0.46 =0.41, not 0.14; inlet 107 (4in/hr),
0.17 =0.46 =037, not 0.11. Item should be carefully checked in future.
C. Storm Sewer Design (10 -yr vs. 100 -yr Frequency tables): Compare drainage areas; they should not
change. 10 -yr or 100 -yr events do not affect DA — revise tables. Check calcs for accuracy.
(Compare DA, 10 v. 100 -yr: 109 -107; 107 -105A, 103 -113, 125-123 ... 156-U.B.Pond)
d. Storm sewer design: 156A — Sediment Basin runoff cfs = 63.30, but capacity 36" DIA line listed
as 56.66 cfs. Pipes must flow within capacity; revise design for this section of storm sewer.
e. Recommend increase slope of pipe 101 (point 100 -Ex. 13) since slopes downstream of Ex. 13
are well below design minimum of 0.50% (0.30 %, Ex. 13 -Ex. 11; 0.41 %, Ex. 11 -Ex. 3).
f. Labels: 100 -yr table — revise labels to read 156 to U.B. Pond; 132 to 154.
5. Hazel Lane appears to require no- parking on one side, which should be indicated by signs.
A 29' width would negate the need for this. (VDOT Road Design Manual, App. B, table 1).
(Rev. 4) Comment addressed.
6. New: sheet 7 — leader line for label 101 points to inlet str. #100, but 101 is a pipe. Please
revise.
7. New: sheet 7 —Use different line weight or labels to indicate existing storm sewer lines
on Baywick Circle, Golf Drive, and Golf View Drive —see existing storm sewer line
type /weight at Golf View Drive and Addle Hill Rd as a distinguishing example.
8. New: sheet 13/14 —Str #111 to Str #105 profile /vertical grid (Elev.) labels do not match;
Str #125 to Str #123 — profile /vertical grid line label (Elev.) mismatch, rt/lft side of fig.
9. New: HGL —Flow not contained within pipe 112. Ref inlet sta. 103: upstream elev.
684.63' while elev. pipe 112: Inv + 18" DIA = 684.55'. This condition may resolve
with requested revisions (Note a., above), but if not, please revise to ensure 10 -yr flow
is contained within pipe 112 (sta. 103 elev. < 684.55').
10. New: Include VDOT IS -1 detail (2008 Road and Bridge Stds, Section 100, Standard Method
for Shaping Manhole and Inlet Inverts, p. 106.08). Image, below:
If
<-V
7PArOTIDN H!IWCEN
PPE DIAMLTER5 WHEN
DIFFERENT SIZES Or
PIPES ARE EY�OLITERED.
NOTES
iJaAAWO OF WMIIOLE rho hLET nvER -S iN ACCORDANCE WITH
TH5 DRAWNC IS TO APPLY -C THCSF S-R.K.TLRF5 5PEt�ED
ON PLW OR WHERE INVERT OF PIPE S A80YE NWRT OF
STRUCTJE.
UA-
PyEi IS TO fiF =n cpHSTRVCTEP
W ACCOR:PN CE WITH JPTHACAHLE STA AFrTJ CR SPECIAL `177.
THE INVERT SIIMNC AS DETAILED •CREOY IS T] COEIST CF A
RW Lu fEIENI ComRE TE Mx c f1 AS OR
m C1 EXCEPT THAT 2W OF COIRSE A REGATE MAY H
-P -O •Y N DIAMCTM J COY315T OF STDHE• 9a m B 11-
eN [GHERETE OR WH N CuHCHL IL eZ�E R. TM SuIF
�I K LEFT SwUOTH $v "Et n• i IRONELUTG. "CFC
D=A 1E VUARrK MORU ATE 5HALL REMANI U?QZED.
NIS of NVERT SHoiwA AS S V.. x4REGl ATE rCa C..W E
DsES p1 r. F 1-111 CR DROP 'LIT 4 T9 @E 5HAPF0
HDWY DUALLY TO BEST FT TFE 'ART CULAR INLET AND OUTLET
.DNIIGLRATRIH AND FLOW LINES.
I SNIPE 70 ELEYAIFCN
J OF W- FF, CE
LARGEST PPE.
CONTOUR
OF APE -
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
v 0 OUTLET PPE TO IvvTR-
�� SECTION A -A
METHOD OF TREATMENT IN DROP INLETS
SLOPE TO DRAM
TO INVERT OF
OUTLET APE
SECTION B -8
PLAN
METHOD OF TREATMENT IN MANHOLES
STANDARD METHOD OF SHAPING
ROAD AND RAIDX STANDARDS R:F:REYCE
50EET , _7177-1- DATE MANHOLE & INLET INVERTS 3 z
MAR '+ 9NIA DEPARTMENT 07 TR:N5a7RTA -0Y
VSMP: Stormwater Management Plan (WP0201400004):
A construction record drawing is needed for the pond.
Rev.3: The plan has been clarified to contain as -built information serving as a record drawing.
Comment addressed.
Please do not use the proposed master stormwater plan sheet, as this contains information that
cannot be approved with this plan. It is enough that plans agree with the ZMA approved plans.
The ZMA plan would be appropriate to include, but it is not necessary.
Rev.3: Comment addressed.
There was not enough information with the plans to check routings as summarized on plan sheets.
The construction record drawings with drainage areas and details may provide this.
Rev.3: This pond was previously approved with the Timmons plan before construction. The
information provided is verification of adequacy.
Rev.3: The stormwater management plan is approved.
VSMP: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (WP0201400004):
Provide a profile and details for the sediment basin as it is to be constructed with this project.
Provide all supporting computations and drainage areas per the handbook. (This must be done as a
first step in construction activities.) In my experience VDOT does not want the road to act as an
embankment or dam. I would have to get VDOT approval for such an arrangement.
Rev.3: This comment is being held for possible correct in a later amendment. I do not have a
VDOT approval for impounding on the public road culvert, but I am approving the plan based on
your word in our meeting of Thursday, 21St of August, last week, in which you said VDOT was OK
with it. I will verify.
Remove the diversions through the middle of the grading activity. These are not maintainable. It
Engineering Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
appears to be an attempt to split up the site artificially, to provide traps instead of a basin, which
does not appear viable. A basin in front of 123 would appear to address this and the inlet
computation.
Rev.3: comment addressed.
Show permanent seeding symbols on the plans.
Rev.3: comment addressed in part. Missing areas will be expected to be permanently seeded
within 9 months per county code.
Rev.3: The erosion control plan is conditionally approved per comment 1.
VSMP: Pollution Prevention Plan (WP0201400004):
A pollution prevention plan was not received. A pollution prevention plan is required.
Rev.3: The pollution prevention plan has been received.
VSMP: SWMPP, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (WP0201400004
Please revise the SWPPP to be specific to this project, and reference or include these specific
plans. Please make sure all dates are noted and certifications signed. The EPA template is a good
place to start, as noted in the completeness check document sent previously. For existing DEQ
permits provide the registration statement and DEQ coverage letter so the area of coverage and
fees can be checked.
Rev.3: The swppp documents have been received. You have provided a generic document for
more than just this project. Under our current DEQ guidance, you would need to have final plans
and documents approved for all those areas in the swppp, in order to receive your VSMP permit
coverage from the county. As DEQ has issued coverage, I will approve these as they are for now,
but I anticipate you will need to amend them in order not to be in violation.
VSMP: Mititation Plan (WP0201400004):
A mitigation plan was not received. A mitigation plan is required for disturbance to stream buffer.
Rev.3: You have indicated that the stream buffer disturbance was a result of a previous phase, so
this will be addressed through other projects.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:00 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments.
File: SUB201400092 -OTV Blocks 28 & 29B- 091514
Al
vr�N1Q
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 Blocks 28 & 29B (SDP201400009, WP0201400004,
SUB201400092)
Plan preparer:
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. [cmulligan @roudabush.com]
Owner or rep.:
MARCH MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC [dave @oldtrailvillage.com]
Plan received date:
11 February 2014
(Rev. 1)
9 June 2014 (Road Plans /SUB201400092)
(Rev. 1)
12 June 2014 (Site /WPO)
Date of comments:
21 March 2014
(Rev. 1)
23 July 2014
Reviewer:
Max Greene (initial); John Anderson
Please adequately address the following items for final site plan, ESC, and SWM approval per Albemarle
County Code:
1. Site plan (SDP201400009):
a. Please update the topography to within one year of submittal date. The topography
should at least be field verified and stated on the plan with a date of verification. [ 14 -302,
18- 32.5.2, policy] (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
b. Lot #20 driveways is shown across "Open Space" and appears to have adequate room on
the lot for the driveway. Recommend moving driveway off "Open Space" lot. (Rev. 1)
Comment not addressed.
c. Storm drain pipes are missing from sheet 5 of 26. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
d. Please provide a bench mark location, elevation and datum for topography. [policy]
(Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
e. Proposed grading has a mix of contour intervals making the topography difficult to
decipher. Please pick either the 1' contour or the 2' contour for consistency. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
f. Please make sure match lines are correct and page numbers are accurate. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
g. Please show all buffer limits on plans. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
h. Buffer disturbance will need a mitigation plan. (Rev. 1) Comment withdrawn.
i. Please show critical slopes on the plans. [18 -4.2, 14 -304] (Rev. 1) Comment
withdrawn — County -GIS shows trace critical slopes in one location.
j. Please show the easements on the plan and check the depth to easement width for
excavation limits. [18- 32.6.2.g] (Rev. 1) Comment substantially addressed —
Easement schedule, sheet 14, should transfer to plan view; all drainage easements need to
be shown. Easement for 228 LF 36" DIA HDPE (pipe 156) between structure 154 and
proposed sediment basin is not shown; this pipe is not labeled temporary.
k. Please show sight distance lines on landscape plan to verify unobstructed sight easements.
Trees may need to be moved out of lines of sight. (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed. As follow -up, defer to Planning on sight distance -tree conflicts at multiple
locations —for example: Addle Hill Road -Golf Drive; Addle Hill -Hazel Grove Lane;
Birchin Drive - Belgrove St.
1. Please show road name and traffic sign locations on the plans. (Rev. 1) Comment
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
addressed.
m. Please change the line weight for existing pipes so they will not be counted as proposed.
(Rev. 1) Comment not addressed —sheet 7: Baywick Circle storm drain lines shown with
heavy line weight, identical with proposed lines.
n. New: Show 25' radius at Addle Hill Road -Golf View Drive; Golf View Drive -Hazel
Grove Lane intersections (sheet 5; site /road plans).
o. New: Revise Note, sheet 9, to reference storm sewer schedules on sheet 10, rather than
sheet 17.
2. Drainage and road plan (SUB210400092):
a. Please show the Stormwater drainage easements on the plan views. [Code Sec. 18- 32.5.2,
18- 32.6.2.d] (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed —see j., above
b. Future storm drainage systems shall have an outlet to prevent them filling with water over
time. [structure 144] (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
c. Please show VDOT designations for entrances on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment
withdrawn.
d. VDOT approval is required for final plan approvals. (Rev. 1) Comment
acknowledged -ref General Construction Note 2, title page, 9 -June -2014 plans.
e. Fire /rescue department approval is required for final plan approvals. (Rev. 1) Unclear if
addressed - Please confirm that road plans were submitted directly to Albemarle
Fire /Rescue.
f. Alleys will be designed to prevent stormwater flows from entering intersections. Please
use the rural street intersection criteria of continuing the -2% cross grade for a minimum
20' from the edge of pavement of the intersected street down the alley to provide a low
point off the intersected street for drainage. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed; see
Belgrove St- Ashlar Ave, Hazel Grove Lane -Golf View Drive intersections. Also: VDOT
comment 44, 7 July 2014. Also, relatively flat grades in block 28 indicate potential for
nuisance ponding. Show spot elevations and furnish drainage for low points.
g. Please show Cross -drain locations on plans at every major cut fill transition or sag with
VDOT designations. (Rev. 1) Comment partially addressed. Provide CD -2 at Future
Sag, Sta. 22 +45.17, Golf View Drive; CD -1 at Sta. 16 +30f, Addle Hill Road.
h. Please update all standard notes as shown in the ACDSM. (Rev. 1) Comment
addressed.
i. Please check angles of deflections on storm water system. Drainage pipe angles need to
be 90 degrees or greater. For example stormwater structures 110 and 117 appear to be
less than 90 degrees. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
j. Please provide drainage profiles for the entire stormwater system. (Rev. 1) Comment
partially addressed; See VDOT road plan comment #5, 7 July 2014. (Additional
detail/clarification required.)
k. Please show inlet shaping for stormwater manhole junctions to reduce the risk of standing
water/ breeding areas for mosquitoes. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
1. Pipes with slopes less than 0.5% are too flat and may not be self cleaning. Albemarle
County Policy is for all stormwater systems will have a minimum 0.5% slope. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
m. New: Show 25' radius at Addle Hill Road -Golf View Drive; Golf View Drive -Hazel
Grove Lane intersections (sheet 5).
n. New: Defer to ACSA on design considerations for MH depth >10 -ft; sheets 13/14.
o. New: Separate out on -grade and sag inlets. Use VDOT template or format to show flow,
right/left along approach curb at sag inlets. Ensure spread is acceptable, even when
temporary.
3. Stormwater Protection (WP0201400004):
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
a. Stormwater management proposal will be addressed by the County Engineer. Update:
Meeting scheduled 28 July 2014 to discuss Stormwater Master Plan.
b. New: Sheet 9 table values listed: Existing & Direct Runoff Diverted into Upper Ballard
Farm Pond; Pre - Developed Ballard Pond Drainage; Post - Developed Ballard Pond
Drainage. Purpose of table unclear. Please explain. DA, existing /diverted = 46.6 Ac;
pre - developed = 100.94 Ac; post - developed = 152.64 Ac. (There appears to be an MS-
19 issue).
c. New: sheet 10 furnishes routing data for sub - catchments and ponds not immediately clear
or traceable to post -dev. pond routings (ultimate onsite development) values shown on
sheet 9. Sheet 20, 11 Feb 2014 plans included peak discharge graphs that may be helpful,
but these are not included with current plan set. We do not understand the sheet 10 data.
4. Erosion and Sediment Control (WP0201400004):
a. Blocks 29A & 35A do not appear to be shown correctly. Please show the existing
topography now that grading has occurred on Blocks 29A & 35A. [14 -302, 18- 32.5.2,
policy] (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
b. Bulk grading plan has a mix of 1' and 2' contour intervals and is inconsistent. Please
pick one contour interval to reduce misinterpretation of proposed grading. (Rev. 1)
Comment addressed.
c. Double row of silt fence do not typically work and are difficult for the contractor to
maintain. Please show a sediment trap in the lowest area near the pond. It can be filled in
after site stabilization to finished contours shown. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
d. Please show temporary /permanent seeding on the `Bulk grading Plan ". Seeding will not
be required unless project or portions of project will not be completed within the 9 month
land disturbance time limit. [Code Sec. 17-207.13.21 (Rev. 1) Comment partially
addressed; show permanent seeding (PS) if portions of site will not be completed within
the 9 month disturbance limit.
e. Sediment basin construction details are required. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
Furnish profile view of sediment basin; draw to scale. Show L X W floor dimensions of
sediment basin. Provide computations for outlet structures per VESCHB.
f. Sediment traps with diversions that bisect the site do not work in the field and are a
burden to both the contractor and inspector to maintain the drainage divisions. (Rev. 1)
Comment not addressed. This site appears to require a sediment basin.
g. Blocks will need E &SC protection to keep mud off the new road construction. This
office recommends a sediment trap behind inlet structure #112 with a pipe into the back
of structure #112. (Rev. 1) Comment not addressed.
h. Silt fence or earth berm draining to control structures should be placed behind sidewalks
to protect the new road and sidewalk areas from sedimentation until the vegetation is
established. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
i. Please remove proposed 1' contours or make the whole plan with 1' contours. (Rev. l )
Comment addressed -see b., above.
j. Please show the stock pile locations on the plan. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
k. Please show staging and parking areas for the contractors and other construction related
areas. (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
1. New: General Construction Notes, title sheet, #18 — revise `straw mulch is to be applied at
80 lbs /100 SF' to read `80 lbs /1000 SF.'
m. New: Sheet 2, cannot locate adjoining parcel 11; label parcel 11.
n. New: Show mulch/dust control (MU/DC).
o. New: Show entrance pipe at CE. Furnish IP /OP for this pipe.
p. New: Sheet 4, dimension riprap apron (L X W X D), pipe 156 leading to sediment basin.
q. New: Add silt fence to tree protection, block 29B, to prevent off -site sediment transport.
r. New: Revise DV, north boundary, block 35C, to discharge to existing sediment trap near
Upper Ballard Pond (DV appears to discharge on top of embankment, near ST outfall).
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
s. New: Sheet 5: list ST outlet embankment width as 5' for ST 1 and ST2, as 4' for ST 3.
t. New: relocate OP2 landward of Upper Ballard Pond; do not show extending into pond.
u. New: Show ESC needed to install pipe 155 leading to Upper Ballard Pond.
v. New: Sediment basin baffles: show if needed. Specify SB side slopes (2:1, 2.5:1, etc).
Due to the level of completeness of this submittal additional comments or conditions may be forthcoming.
Also, please refer to the letter on Albemarle County's website regarding the VSMP and future submittals. Link:
http:// www.albemarle.or,gLupload/images /forms center/ departments /Community Development/forms /En ing eerina a
nd WPO Forms /Albemarle County VSMP Letter 07- 08- 2014.pdf
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:00 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments.
Please contact John Anderson at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3069 or email janderson2(d)albemarle.org to schedule an
appointment.
File: WP0201400004- SDP201400009 -OTV Blocks 28 & 29B- 072314
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, Virgin a 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
July 7, 2014
Mr. Johnathan Newberry
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP - 2014 -00009 Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 and 29B Final Site Plan
SUB - 2014 -00092 Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 and 29B Road Plan
Dear Mr. Newberry:
We have reviewed the final site plan for Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 and 29B and the Ashlar
Avenue Public Road Plans for Old Trail Village, Blocks 28 and 29B dated January 31, 2014 with
revisions dated June 6, 2014 as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc. and offer the
following comments:
1. General Construction Notes for Streets need to include reference to VDOT inspection of
the roads to be dedicated to public use. In addition, copies of all CBRs for the proposed
roads need to be provided to this office for review.
2. It does not appear that the storm sewer profile for the section between structures 103 and
113 was included in the plans.
3. The designations for the storm sewer pipe and the storm structures are the same in plan
view and it is difficult to tell which label applies to a structure and which applies to pipe
in many cases. Also, some of the labels are not shown next to the structure and/or pipe.
It would be helpful if there were differing labels for the pipe and structures. In addition,
the labels should be shown closer to the feature that they are referring to or arrows should
be added to make it clear which feature is being labeled.
4. Per previous comments, the profiles should show a vertical curve at the street
connections. Please note that the detail for a CG -11 as shown in the 2008 Road and
Bridge Standards indicates that there will be a 10' parabolic curve at the connection. The
profiles should show vertical curves to avoid confusion during construction.
5. The storm sewer references in the profiles remain confusing. Most of the invert
references have in parenthesis a structure reference. However, some of the numbers are
structure numbers and some are pipe numbers. It would be helpful to have a consistent
designation such as the invert in being referenced to the upstream structure that the pipe
is coming from. Some, but not all, specific examples are as follows:
• On the profile for Belgrove Road at approximately station 10 +50, there are 2
invert ins referenced, but no indication as to which structure the pipe is coming
from.
• On the profile for Belgrove Road at approximately station 13 +00, which invert in
is from structure 148 and which is from structure 136.
• On the profile for Golf View Drive at approximately station 18 +75, one of the
invert ins references "STR #127 ", when feature #127 is actually storm pipe and
not a structure.
• On the profile for Golf View Drive at approximately station 19 +60, there is an
invert out reference to STR #128, however, structure 128 is not located at this
location, nor is it directly upstream or downstream to either of the proposed
structures at this location.
6. It is understood that street parking on Belgrove Street will be intermittent, however, the
plan view should indicate which side parking will be allowed on and "No Parking" signs
should be provided on the other so that all parking remains on one side of the street.
7. Per the 2009 Pavement Design Guide, the minimum aggregate depth for street sections is
to be 6 ".
8. Several of the storm sewer sections were found to be surcharged during the 10 -year
frequency storm. It is difficult to tell from the HGL calculations if this pressurized
condition was taken into account for the HGL calculations.
9. The lower storm sewer design table does not indicate the frequency storm event being
analyzed.
10. Pavement design calculations still need to be submitted for review.
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