Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201300179 Approval - County 2015-06-01� 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: 5t' 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 Rev.3: 27 March 2015 Rev.4: 15 May 2015 Date of comments: 12 Feb 2014 Rev. 1: 11 June 2014 Rev.2: 7 Oct 2014 Rev.3: 7 Apr 2015 Rev.4: 1 June 2015 Reviewer: Glenn Brooks A. Road and drainage plans (SU13201300179) The road plan is approved subject to approval of retaining walls plans to support the road and culvert. There are no significant items left regarding the road itself. Remaining items are highlighted below, to be addressed with retaining wall plans, site plans, plats for right -of -way dedication, and building permits. It is our understanding that Charlottesville has approved signal plans and improvements, and VDOT has approved bridge and signal plans, with retaining walls plan approvals pending. VDOT approval is required. Rev. 1: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev.2: Provide documentation of VDOT approval. Rev.3: VDOT comments have been forwarded. Rev.3: 1VDOT correspondence is attached. There was a change to the guardrail ends and some conditions for retaining walls. 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. Rev.3: Troy Austin has conveyed approved of the bridge plans, and a copy has been received. 3. 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 Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 5 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. Rev.3: Please revise the plans with Building Permit B2015- 00293 -0. Please clarify how the retaining walls interact with the culvert ends. The plans appear to show an arched concrete beam which abuts the culvert plate, but there is a dashed line through the section in C -C which does not make sense. The section also calls out a headwall by others, which is unexplained. The 3" gap would appear to expose the plate. The plans also say to see contech drawings for plate details. Please provide these. Detail what is being done to prevent rust. Rev.4: The responsibility for detailing the interaction between the base oT the walls and the culvert appears to be left up to the retaining wall plans, which have not been received. 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. Rev.3: comment addressed on other plans. 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 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. Rev.3: As discussed in various meetings, the retaining walls have been changed to the Mesa system. This is reflected generically on sheet 15, but the revised retaining wall plans need to be provided. This would appear to affect walls E, A, B, C and D. Rev.4: No change. 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. Rev.3: Plans are under review by the Planning Division. Rev.4: Planning comments; "No objection with this condition: The applicant will need to provide sidewalk along Avon with the second phase, which is currently under review. If they need to also update /amend their road plans, then they will also need to do that before final approval of the second BLA�l 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. Engineering Review Comments Page 3 of 5 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. Rev.3: addressed. 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. Rev.3: dropped. 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. Rev.3: This has been addressed on other plans. 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. Rev.3: dropped. 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 Rev.3: addressed with Planning. 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. 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. Rev.3: An i= inadequate throat length in the northernmost entrance has been identified on the site plan, which may necessitate a change. This is not a necessary entrance to the site, so I want to clarify that the road plan does not carry with it an approval of site plan entrances. Rev.4: No change. 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. Engineering Review Comments Page 4 of 5 Rev. 1: Nothing received. Rev.2: nothing received. Rev.3: addressed. 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. Rev.3: Please provide guardrail end treatments on sheets 5b and 5c. This is of concern on the Avon side, and over the arch culvert. The entrance stub over retaining wall C appears to be an area of potential danger. Perhaps this could be better coordinated with the site plan in process to show protection measures above the wall. Rev.4: Road accepta ill require that the entrance guardrail continuation be addressed in the fiell. 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. Rev.3: dropped 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. Rev.3: addressed. 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 Engineering Review Comments Page 5 of 5 c. inlet shaping for any drop of 4' or more Rev. 1: not found 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. Rev.3: Stormwater and mitigation plans have been approved. 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. Rev.3: Erosion control plans have been approved. File: E1_ rp,esc,swm,fsp_GEB_template.doc