HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201400080 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2014-12-17� A
kn
t ?RG1131A
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)
Plan received date:
Date of comments:
(Rev. 1)
(Rev. 2)
(Rev. 3)
Date of comments
Reviewer:
Old Trail Village - Block 15, PHASE 1 AND 2
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc [914 Monticello Road, Charlottesville, VA
22902, bledbetter(&roudabush.com ]
March Mountain Properties [ 1005 Heathercroft Circle, Suite 100, Crozet, VA
22932, dave @oldtrailvillage.com]
21 May 2014, block 15
30 July 2014
20- Nov -2014
15- Dec -2014
19 Aug 2014, block 12
3 July, 2014, block 15
15 Sep 2014
11 -Dec 2014 (e- review /ref CV)
12 -Dec 2014 (e- review /ref CV)
17- Dec -2014
15 Sep, 2014, block 12
John Anderson
Block 15 and 12 road plan comments were combined in prior correspondence. Block 12 comments are removed from this correspondence.
This review approves block 15, phase 1 (ONLY) road plan design of approximately 160 LF of Claremont Lane required to provide safe,
convenient access to block 12, Lots 1 -7 ( -see Also WPO comments, WP0201400071, 15- Dec -14). Road plan, phase 2, though approved by
VDOT (16- Dec -14 comments), is not approved since SWMP does not cover post - developed runoff from block 15, phase 2 road plan.
Bonds: Block 15, phase 1 road plan may be bonded. This bond is being processed. Block 15, phase 2 road plan may not be bonded prior to
SWMP approval of phase 2 road/subdivision development.
A. Road Plans (SUB201400080 [block 15: phase 1 and 2])
1. Furnish pipe and inlet computations (inlets: spread/capacity, elevations, descriptions; pipes: flow, velocity,
L, DIA, inverts, etc). No roadway storm collection system computations or calculations are included with
Road Plan, though computations may have been submitted directly to VDOT. (Rev. 1) Comment
partially addressed. Transfer inlet computations, storm sewer design, storm sewer schedule, and
hydraulic gradeline (tables) to plans (sent to ACCD as email attachment). Specific revisions required:
a. Inlet computations: Capacity - 6.5in/hr (Rev. 2) — Comments Addressed.
i) Revise inlet lengths (L) for sag inlets if L /Lt <1.0. Lt = design length required for 100% capture. If
L /Lt <1.0, proposed L insufficient —ref column L/Lt: inlets 11, 13, and 49.
ii) W =2.5 is inaccurate if roll -top curb transitions to CG -6 prior to inlet; W =2' for CG -6 section inlets.
Clarify if intent is no transition to CG -6 upstream of storm drain inlets. ACCD requires transition to
CG -6 prior to storm drain inlets; please revise.
iii) Revise W /T, if W revised (ii, above).
iv) DEPTH /HFT is dimensionless (revise heading, del. FT). Values are inaccurate. For ex.: Inlet 11
(6.5in/hr), 0.23 - 0.46 =0.5, not 0.22; inlet 13 (6.5in/hr), 0.22 =0.46 =0.48, not 0.14. Please check
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 4
carefully in the future.
v) Check/revise for accuracy: Qincr + Qco =Qt. For example: Inlet 5 (6.5in/hr), 0.25 +0.23 =0.41; inlet 7,
0.31 + 0 = 0.23; inlet 22, 0.64 + 0.04 =0.52. All values should be reviewed/revised as necessary—ref.
VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.5.3.1.1, step 16.
vi) Replace existing format; use VDOT Drainage Manual format found at Appendix 913-1, LD -204.
vii) 37A is a pipe (37B is inlet); please revise table entry.
b. Inlet computations: Spread - 4in/hr (Rev. 2) — Comments Addressed.
i) W =2.5 is inaccurate if roll -top curb transitions to CG -6 prior to inlet; W =2' for CG -6 section
inlets. Clarify if intent is no transition to CG -6 upstream of storm drain inlets. ACCD requires
transition to CG -6 prior to storm drain inlets; please revise.
ii) Revise W /T, if W revised (ii, above).
iii) DEPTH /HFT is dimensionless (revise heading, del. FT). Values are inaccurate. For ex.: Inlet 11
(4in/hr), 0.21 =0.46 =0.46, not 0.16; inlet 9 (4in/hr), 0.12 =0.46 =0.26, not 0.06. Please check all
values carefully; revise as necessary.
iv) Check/rcvise for accuracy: Qmcr + Qco =Qt. For example: Inlet 43 (4in/hr), 1.30 +0.48 =1.45;
inlet 45, 0.72 + 0 = 0.54; inlet 49, 0.14 + 0.20 =0.30. Revise all values, if necessary —ref. VDOT
Drainage Manual, 9.5.3.1.1, step 16.
V) Replace existing format; use VDOT Drainage Manual format found at Appendix 913-1, LD -204.
When using VDOT LD -204, show inlet type. Delete columns not included in LD -204 (DA GUTR,
for example).
C. Storm sewer design: (Rev. 2/3) — Comments Addressed, or reserved (future phase, block 12):
i) Velocity from points 59 -61 and 57 -49 are <3 fps design minimum; please revise.
ii) Slope from point 57 -49 is less than 0.50% design minimum; please revise.
iii) Label inlets 1, 27, and 32 Ex. (existing) only if they exist, not simply if they exist on block 15
road design plans.
iv) Label existing inlets existing only they have been installed or exist beyond design (i.e., exist
on approved plans). Ref. block 12 road plan sheet 7 which shows inlets on Claremont Lane,
Court Mont Way, and Rowcross Street as existing. These inlets are under concurrent review.
Blocks 12 and 15 were simply separated. Labels must be accurate to avoid misunderstanding.
(Block 15 road plan, sheet 6: inlet 27 is proposed; inlets 1 and 32 are existing [sheet 3].)
V) Since development plans and road plan designs for blocks 12 and 15 co- exist, revise D.A. and/or
C values (block 15, sheet 10) to reflect developed condition of block 12; two drainage areas
appear affected. Carry revised DA/C into and through storm sewer design calculations.
vi) Provide time of concentration calculations for drainage areas for inlets: 59, 57, 53, 39, 37B, 20,
24, 13, and 11. Ensure that developed condition is used: impervious pavement, roofs, walks, etc.
Compare inlet 39 and 37B: DA and developed ground cover conditions vary, yet Tc is identical.
Time of concentration appears high. Calculations or estimates appear inconsistent.
vii) Revise pipe 15 so that runoff is contained within pipe: runoff cfs exceeds pipe capacity by 27 %.
(Rev. 3/1 reserved]) Pipe 15 appears with block 12, future phase.
viii) 27 -27A: pipe L = 73.21' - 1.08 %. Compare with block 12 road plan/sh.10, storm sewer profile
#24- #14: Ex. 27b is incorrect label; use 25 instead (pipe str. #). Compare with block 15 /sh.13,
storm sewer profile Ex. #32 - #27A: 84 LF of 30" HDPE @0.90 %. Storm sewer design table
includes temp and permanent conditions, which is acceptable, and profile, block 15 /sh.13 is
acceptable, but this profile requires note or label indicating inlet 27 will connect with inlet 20A.
Furnish label or note. (Also, item #256, below.) (Rev. 31[ reserved]) Structures appear with
future phase, block 12.
d. Hydraulic gradeline: (Rev. 2) Comments addressed.
i) 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. 7 upstream elev. = 658.12'
while str. 9 outlet elev. (same point) = 662.35'. Str. 18, upstream elev. = 652.16' while str. 20A outlet elev.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 4
(same point) = 656.60', a 4.44' difference. Please revise HG data such that a single location has a single H2O
elevation.
ii) Outlet H2O elev. str. 61 is listed = 657.50'. The outlet is outfall with H2O elev. listed = 656.50. Revise.
iii) Design for flow within pipes: H2O elev. :S INV elev. + pipe DIA. 22 pipes have H2O elev.> INV + pipe DIA.
Review and revise design as necessary. All pipe sections must be designed to flow within capacity.
2. The profile for Rowcross Street should clearly define where the profile for Block 15 begins and ends
(VDOT comment #16, VDOT comment letter dated June 12, 2014). (Rev. 1) Comment addressed.
VDOT must approve road plans. VDOT comments sent to Applicant (project primary contact) via e -mail
attachment, 12- Jun -14. ACCD reiterates: VDOT approval required for public roads and assoc. elements.
(Rev. 3) VDOT approval, phase 1 and phase 2: 16- Dec -14. (County-View [CV] document)
NEW
1. Show all transitions, roll -top curb to CG -6 prior to storm inlets. Block 15 road plan, sheet 3, east end
Court Mont Way provides an example. Please revise plan view sheets to show how and where transitions
occur: block 15 road plan, sheet 3; block 12 road plan, sheet 4 (Court Mont Way, Pvt. Alley `A'). (Rev.
2) Comment addressed.
2. Revise sheet title: a SITE PLAN cannot be approved as part of a road plan. (block 15, sheet 3; block 12, sheet 4)
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
3. Label pipe 19, between inlets 20 and 27 (block 12, sheet 4). (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
4. Once pipe 19 is labeled, re- number pipe between inlets 20a -18 (block 12, sheet 4). (Rev. 3; reserved
future phase, block 12).
5. Locate public /(proposed) private dividing line (Rowcross Street, block 12, sheet 4), the point at which
public portion of roadway ends and private begins, further east to radius return at intersection of
Claremont and Rowcross. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
6. Furnish private drainage easements for all proposed drainage elements beyond public RW, including
easements that fall within private access easements (Pvt. Alley `A', for example); do not label public any
easement beyond public RW; such easements will be held private. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
7. Revise 20' PUBLIC DRAINAGE ESMT. (labels), block 12, sheet 5, not maintained by Albemarle County or
VDOT. These are private drainage easements ( #6, above). Note inlet 27- outfall (point 14), inlet 11 -1.
(Rev. 2/3; reserved future phase, block 12 /future easement plat).
8. Indicate elements on Claremont (and east) that do not exist. Inlet 1 exists, but many elements are proposed
under block 15 road /site plans. Choose method of line weight or labeling that makes clear which signs,
inlets /pipes, easements, pavement, or curb exist —are constructed or approved to be built. Do not label an
easement existing until and unless recorded. Ref. block 12 sheet 4. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
9. Label 13' sidewalk maintenance easement between lots 1 -12 and Old Trail Drive private since neither
Albemarle nor VDOT will maintain this sidewalk. (block 12, sheet 5) (Rev. 3; reserved future phase,
block 12).
10. Provide temporary barricade at south end Pvt. Alley `A', between end and future development, block 12,
sheet 4. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
11. Provide permanent structural barricade at north end Pvt. Alley `A', between end and sidewalk.
Comment withdrawn: discussed 12- Dec -14. 3 -ft grade break.
12. Relocate street sign coincident with storm pipe at Int. Pvt. Alley `A' and Court Mont Way. (Rev. 2)
Comment addressed.
13. Provide Speed Limit sign, Pvt. Alley `A', if less than Rowcross Street or Court Mont Way speed limit –
block 12, sheet 4. (Rev. 3; reserved future phase, block 12).
14. Label retaining wall that runs beside sidewalk on Rowcross Street: block 12, sheets 4 and 7. (Rev. 3;
reserved future phase, block 12).
15. For top of wall (tw) elev ( #14, above), provide corresponding bw elevations. Furnish wall profile,
schematic details. Lines should indicate batter, face of wall, back of wall, block 12, plan sheets 4 and 7.
That is, drawing should reflect actual dimensions, drawn to scale. (Rev. 3; reserved future phase, block
12).
16. Locate public /(proposed) private dividing line (Rowcross Street), the point at which the public portion of
Rowcross Street ends and private begins, further east to the radius return at the intersection of Rowcross
and Claremont. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
17. Delete Notes 21, 22 (GENERAL NOTES FOR ESC PLANS, sheet 6), since they contain invalid code
references; they no longer appear in the ACDSM. Comment withdrawn.
18. Revise title of Claremont Lane profile to clarify that this section is proposed under road plan 15, and will
Engineering Review Comments
Page 4 of 4
be reVieA'ed Hfidef f6ad pla-H 15. This PE)Aiell ef Glafeffiefft Lane does net exist. (bleek 12, sheet 9)
19. Profile of Private Alley `A' shows curb -like feature at lower, south end; transfer, label and show on sheet
4, block 12 road plans. Review error; comment withdrawn
20. Existing ground ELEV. at Int. Rowcross Street and Alley `A' varies substantially in profile views (650' v.
663'). Revise. (Rev. 3; reserved future phase, block 12)
21. Reconcile Rowcross St. profiles (block 12 -15): (Rev. 3; reserved future phase, block 12).
•block 15 /sh.I I shows FUTURE ROAD EXTENSION BLOCK 12: (- )2.0 %, sta. 10 +00- 10 +25; then 100' VC, sta.
10 +25 -11 +25 at (- )2.0 %/2.0 %.
•BLOCK I2 /sh.9 shows (- )2.08 %, 10 +00- 10 +25; then 75' VC, sta. 10 +25 -11 +00 at ?/0.39%.
• Provide seamless or at least consistent design for Rowcross St., without conflict between block 12 and 15.
(Rev. 3; reserved future phase, block 12).
22. 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. (Rev. 3) Comment addressed, except for Court Mont Way ( ?)
Rowcross St; 10 +08 Court Mont Way; 10 +16 and 14 +45.24 (block 15)
And: 6 *97 78 and 9.84 (blaek 12)
Fielding Run Drive 17 +58.75 Claremont Lane; 13 +32.17
23. Furnish elev. in profile, Claremont Lane, at Int. Rowcross Street. Confirm elev. block 12 = elev. block
15 (666.69'). (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
24. Existing sediment basin bottom profiles differ in storm sewer profiles, road plan 12 /sh.10; reconcile.
(Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
25. Label L /slope of pipes shown in section -view; for example: block 12 /sh. 10 storm profile #13 to Ex. #41,
Ex. 42 (24" HDPE) and Ex. 40 (15" HDPE) connect with Ex. 41, but slope and L are not specified.
Furnish slope -L for storm sewer pipes shown in section -view in storm profiles, block 12 road plans. NA.
26. See item A.l.c.(viii), above. (Rev. 2) Comment addressed.
27. Include VDOT IS -1 detail with block 12 and block 15 road plans (2008 Road and Bridge Stds, Section 100,
Standard Method for Shaping Manhole and Inlet Inverts, p. 106.08). image, bele : (Rev. 2) Comment
addressed.
File: SUB201400080 -Old Trail-blockl 5 -phase 1-2—road- I 21714-rev I